It's definitely not a party game, though I have been caught accidentally agreeing to a game, and then losing in front of everyone. This game was especially highstakes because I played the current boyfriend of a girl I had hooked up with while they were on a break. So he was happy, and I just ruined a social event, and his brothers were cheering.
I don't know chess can be a lot of things to people, and also nothing to others. They eventually broke up, and I hope it was over something chess related.
One thing though it makes me think about is patterns, constraints and responses. Sometimes there is a best response to a pattern on the board. But you just won't notice it, and you can't unless you've studied specific openings and the likely positions you end up in. Other times there isn't necessarily a best response but a response that steers the game into a territory you know well, and can deal with.
A lot of times in chess education and if you look at the most played moves, those moves have been selected for because they win. And this extends almost to the first move you play. Like no one ever moves the pawns in front of your rooks first, just doesn't make sense. It would be very interesting to see chess played not to win but for some other constraint. To just exist, or play the longest game. I think there are these variants, but I don't know what they look like and what patterns emerge.
But with writing I don't think this is always the case. I guess there are themes that work, like fairy tales and the like. But I would assume some more interesting things can be discovered, because we aren't focused on winning. We don't have that constraint or maybe we do.
Lately I have been thinking about my personal constraints I put on writing, and maybe I should try some new ones out.