I had an idea for a hybrid game several days ago, which I imagined as a fusion of Monopoly and Chess. The players control pieces they move around the “outside” of the board, which resembles a standard Monopoly board, and they’re given the option to purchase various industries around the map.

Each time they purchase a new location, or pass one of the corners of the board, they have the option to move a piece on a Chess board set into the center of the Monopoly board. Black and white alternate as normal, and the player stands to gain additional cash (for future purchases), by controlling squares and capturing pieces.

Players can choose not to move the pieces at various points, which I haven’t really thought through. I’m thinking that “Chance” cards enable players to gain bonuses for capturing very specific pieces or moving to specific squares. For example, a Chance card might say, “The next player to move a Knight to a White square gains $200.”

In this way, Chance cards more accurately represent opportunities, which players can take advantage of, at least until the next Chance card is drawn.

Since players can easily switch sides at will, it might be prudent to overlook some of the basic rules of Chess, and simply allow one side to “Capture” the enemy king, thereby ending the game of Profiteering. Since it’s played for money, the capture of a King must be carefully orchestrated to gain maximum advantage.

Other than some superficial changes, and perhaps some thematic ones as well, I don’t know how much either game really needs to change to make the game playable and fun. It might be fun to encourage “Pawn Promotion,” for the Queen gaining extra cash for moving around the board (Celebrities!), but for Queen Capture to be a cash boost.

You can see how the objectives of each game would change substantially with the addition of new income sources and such. Chess lends Monopoly greater strategy, and in return, Chess gains greater context. “Buy War Bonds!” indeed.