Wittgenstein often compares the arbitrariness of the rules of a language to that of the rules of a game, for example, chess: "the purpose of the rules of chess is not to correspond to the essence of chess but to the purpose of the game of chess" [...] We can of course decide, while playing chess, to ignore the existing rules and make up new ones, but then we are not playing chess anymore, and there is a good chance that our opponent does not understand what we are doing (as in the Eschaton game, which ends in a massive fight). [...]