--'The methods of making use of the captured men makes the whole play much more intricate. As a rule, of course, if you take a man of your opponent, possessing greater power, it is better than taking one possessing less power, but this does not always follow, because according to the vicissitudes of the game a man which has less power may be utilised for some particular purpose to greater advantage than one of greater power. This is the point in which our chess has far more interest than yours. Then, again, in your chess one does not seek so much to take a man of one's opponent as one does in our chess, because with yours mere exchange of men is to be avoided as it does not affect the relative force of either side, but with ours one often plays in such a way as to capture a piece or two, even more, even though he loses similar or identical men of his own, in the same process, because by the cleverer use of the captured men a better issue can often be obtained. Another peculiarity of our game is that, when a piece gets into the third row, or beyond, of the squares on the opponent's side, the player has the option of changing its power in certain ways. This is another source of interest. But remember, this method differs from one which is employed in your chess when a pawn gets into the last row of the squares on the opponent's side. As a consequence of all this, you can easily see that there cannot be such a result as a drawn game in our chess.' --'Can you describe the kind of men and the moves of your chess?' asked one. --'Oh, that would take too much time; but I will tell you an incident connected with it. After a dinner party in England, I had some talk on the subject with a bishop, who happened to be present. He asked me what our "castles" (_tours_) were like. I answered we had no castle, because we did not believe a castle could move about on land. We call our corresponding figures "light chariots," or, more commonly, "lances." He next asked me what our queen was like. I answered, we have no queen, because we do not believe in the advisability of making a queen work hard, not only harder than the king, but than all other subjects. You may call it "keeping a woman in seclusion," but we think it respect and consideration for the fair sex not to expose them to such a task as fighting. We have two generals, between whom the power of your queen is divided. One is called "diagonal dasher," and the other "flying chariot." He then asked me what our bishops were like. I answered, we have no bishop, because we do not consider it good taste to make a venerable bishop fight a sanguinary battle, besides, the same moves with which your "bishops" are empowered are bestowed on our "diagonal dasher."' --'You fabricate the story,' said one. --'Not at all,' I answered. 'It was a true and genuine incident. In fact, I do not think the names of most of your "men" very commendable.'