I hereby dislike chess.

[wolfy098]

Chess is and always will be one of the greatest games ever because it is one of few that has no aspect of luck.

Dice games shouldn't exist. I hate games that ultimately are decided by luck. Risk is one of them. It's fun and all, but theoretically a 2-man army could defeat a 25-man army. My friend has seen it happen.

Never heard the story of the two soldiers that charged through the oods near an enemy encampment but died because they ran out of bullets (can't find the site I found it on)

 

[wolfy098]

no for this is as a war should be

on a table in a game played fairly

If a commander thought like that he would be fired.

If wars were like that they wouldn't have those jobs...

 

[Spirultima]

Joke's on you, pal. Nobody really likes Chess, we just say we do to make you feel dumb for not playing.

Yeah, speaking out your ass, bub, i like chess very much, its a basic test of intellegence, both sides are 100% equal, so its a matter of "who plays better" rather then who has the biggest weapon, i.e. CoD5-olitious.

But war is not who is right, but who is left, and the biggest arsehole always wins, so its different to Chess in that respect.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

1. The game is based upon pure "fairness" and the moment.

no it's not, the trick of chess is to make your opponent move where you want him to, it's not fair you just make it seem to be fair

2. No strategizing truly goes into effect because it's based on a system of "rules" so to speak. No freedom in being allowed to perform as one may.

yes there is, the fact that there is a limitation to what the pieces can do is what cause you to strategize and plan.

3. The game is one big assumption that everyone in life is equal to their adversaries.

ummm isn't any game that way?

as i said the whole goal of chess is to trick your opponent into believing that he is winning and can win before you beat him

 

[Cody211282]

No, you just suck at it. Stop complaining. Either practise or stop playing. Whiner.

ya im going with this

 

[Azraellod]

why don't people just settle wars with chess tournaments?

Because war isn't a game, it's about eliminating the opposition from existence.

...i was 9. i didn't take an active interest in war back then.

 

[Jedamethis]

No, you just suck at it. Stop complaining. Either practise or stop playing. Whiner.

ya im going with this

Me too
Well said

 

[wolfy098]

no for this is as a war should be

on a table in a game played fairly

If a commander thought like that he would be fired.

If wars were like that they wouldn't have those jobs...

Touché.
But war is not fought fairly, all sides want to win, not be "good sports"

WW1 Christmas

Humans are actually becoming less humane

War is proof of this

 

[Chicago Ted]

Yeah, it starts off fair, but you should be trying to break that fairness so you can take the advantage.

 

[fudgebo]

Chess has often been called one of the frameworks of many strategists throughout history. Coinciding with this is the belief that it improves one's thinking ability alongside the notion that it shows one how to play thoroughly ahead.

I think this is all rubbish for the following reasons.

1. The game is based upon pure "fairness" and the moment.
2. No strategizing truly goes into effect because it's based on a system of "rules" so to speak. No freedom in being allowed to perform as one may.
3. The game is one big assumption that everyone in life is equal to their adversaries.

Anyone else share this view with me?

War is based purely on assumptions,and war is based on rules, ever hear of the geneava conventions, the hague, the international criminal court, the UN? And equality has nothing to do with war or the game of chess.

 

[somekindarobot]

What kind of game would it be if everybody made up whatever bullshit came to mind?

Actually, I've played a couple games like that. They were very fun in a room of intellectuals, but notably boring when my opponents were less than clever.

Nomic [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#intro] was one of them, I can't remember what the other one was. I remember that it was less intellectual than Nomic, but just as fun. It was an Uno-like rule stacking card game where the winner of the last round got to make up a new rule and the rules could not be told to new players. Supremely amusing.

Aaannyway...

The key to chess is to lose to people better than you. A lot. All of your points are invalid, for the multitude of reasons listed above. It's a game of analysis and strategy, not of life.

Sounds interesting. But even there there is a framework to making rules, rule rules if you will. I couldn't for the life of me understand all that Nomic stuff, though. Of course, I can't even understand backgammon. Now if this guy said he hated backgammon, then maybe I could get behind him.

 

[LaBambaMan]

Joke's on you, pal. Nobody really likes Chess, we just say we do to make you feel dumb for not playing.

Yeah, speaking out your ass, bub, i like chess very much, its a basic test of intellegence, both sides are 100% equal, so its a matter of "who plays better" rather then who has the biggest weapon, i.e. CoD5-olitious.

But war is not who is right, but who is left, and the biggest arsehole always wins, so its different to Chess in that respect.

I love when people can't take a joke.

 

[Valiance]

Chess has often been called one of the frameworks of many strategists throughout history. Coinciding with this is the belief that it improves one's thinking ability alongside the notion that it shows one how to play thoroughly ahead.

I think this is all rubbish for the following reasons.

1. The game is based upon pure "fairness" and the moment.
2. No strategizing truly goes into effect because it's based on a system of "rules" so to speak. No freedom in being allowed to perform as one may.
3. The game is one big assumption that everyone in life is equal to their adversaries.

Anyone else share this view with me?

It's an abstract strategy game, not a war simulation.

Chess is and always will be one of the greatest games ever because it is one of few that has no aspect of luck.

Dice games shouldn't exist. I hate games that ultimately are decided by luck. Risk is one of them. It's fun and all, but theoretically a 2-man army could defeat a 25-man army. My friend has seen it happen.

Look up the Gipf project, it's 5 abstract strategy games, each one better than Chess, my personal favorite being Dvonn.

 

[Thaius]

1. The game is based upon pure "fairness" and the moment.

The moment? Chess is all about anticipating your opponent's moves and trying to trick them into moving the way you want them to. Any good chess player doesn't play in the moment: every move they make is to tip the scales in their favor in the future.

2. No strategizing truly goes into effect because it's based on a system of "rules" so to speak. No freedom in being allowed to perform as one may.

Have you played any RTS games? They're all based on a system of rules: in a way, even real warfare is. Certain units can only do certain things: for instance, you wouldn't expect your average infantry to take down a helicopter, nor would you be able to take tanks through certain terrain. There are rules to everything: complete freedom only exists in the form of free will, but outside limitations take some decisions out of the question.

All that to say, every real-life situation has rules and limitations. Chess is no exception.

3. The game is one big assumption that everyone in life is equal to their adversaries.

This is true, at the beginning at least. But I have seen people get slaughtered at the beginning of a game, only to pull up with their few remaining pieces and win at the end. That is no exactly equal grounds.

Beyond that, you're forgetting (or do you just not know) that there are many forms of chess. Game types vary greatly: not every game of chess is a completely balanced battle.

 

[DarthInfernus]

White has an advantage so it isn't that both sides are equal. I don't exactly love the game because being really good at it involves memorising a large amount of moves so you can work out what to do. That's some serious self inflicted brain damage.

White has the advantage? Please. They move first. That can be a huge DISADVANTAGE. Going second allows you the first glimpse of what your opponent is doing, or going to do. But going first can allow you that one extra decisive move. So they both have an advantage of their own. So it's for all intents and purposes equal.

 

[silasbufu]

well I don't play chess, I know how to but I prefer to do something else instead. But I still do not share those views. Look at sports such as football , basketball etc. Does the presence of numerous rules make the adversaries equal? Not likely

 

[ThreeWords]

Chess has often been called one of the frameworks of many strategists throughout history. Coinciding with this is the belief that it improves one's thinking ability alongside the notion that it shows one how to play thoroughly ahead.

I think this is all rubbish for the following reasons.

1. The game is based upon pure "fairness" and the moment.
2. No strategizing truly goes into effect because it's based on a system of "rules" so to speak. No freedom in being allowed to perform as one may.
3. The game is one big assumption that everyone in life is equal to their adversaries.

Anyone else share this view with me?

No, you just suck at it. Stop complaining. Either practise or stop playing. Whiner.

This, pretty much.

Surely, the real show of tactical genius is that you can beat someone against whom you are perfectly matched, in all but your mind?

And since when could you perform how you liked in the real world? If anything, it's got more rules and regulations

 

[loremazd]

Obviously the only true strategists game is Calvinball.