I hereby dislike chess.

[MrGFunk]

Are you joking? Chess is considered to be one of the best board games for a reason. Just because you aren't good at something doesn't mean it's bad.

The playing field isn't level. The tools for you to use are set - but you better your rivals through intelligence. This isn't football. - well it kind of is but you're the Bill Belichick.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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.

Ever heard of the battle of Thermopylae?

Or how about the Battle of Wizna?

The latter of which it went 59 men from the german army for each polish defender. While the polish did lose the battle they caused some pretty significant damage and stalled the german forces for a good long time.

As the battle started the nazis had roughly 42.200 men, and the polish had 720 men. When the battle was over, 680 poles had been killed and wounded while 15.640 men from the nazis had been killed or wounded. Also at least 50 tanks and several AFV's from the germans had been destroyed by the poles.

So. you still question that a 2 man army could stand up against a 25 man army? A ratio of 59:1 like it was at the battle of Wizna is far worse than 12,5:1 now isn't it? : )

Oh and the polish were severly under-equipped compared to the german forces. Keep that in mind the next time you hear anyone making wisecracks against the polish.

 

[Xskill]

You Sir, are wrong. The reason of chess is to think of a strategy, and having to adapt it when the other player moves, so he will also have to adapt.

It is a basic rule in strategy, so it teaches you. You just probably suck at it .

 

[cartzo]

i dont understand how you've come to think that no real strategizing goes into affect, cus it really does, if you play for long enough you will eventually begin to develope your own strategy, i have, its not a good strategy but it will beat begginers and amatuers that arn't really paying attention. My chess is shit to be honest.

if you research great players you'll find that some articles go into great deal about there strategy.

but chess is what you might call a "marmite" game, you either love it or hate it, if you like puzzles and brainteasers you'll like chess, and viseversa.

 

[The_Echo]

Just because there are rules to follow doesn't mean you can't still strategize, you know.

In fact, without rules it would be quite a non-strategic game.

 

[GrinningManiac]

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?

I take it you're basing this on the general Americans vs Insurgents today and the old Europeans vs Natives scenario of years gone by?

Bear in mind, please, that the game "Chess" was conceived in it's most primitive form in India in the 6th Century, spreading to Iran and China, eventually to Egypt.

Warfare was probably different back then.

And in any case, IT'S...A...GAME! It's not a simulator, it's a competition between evenly-matched opponents. If one guy won all the time, I doubt it would have spread across the globe as easily

 

[jboking]

I think this is all rubbish for the following reasons.

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

So if we have fairness in a game there can't be strategy?

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.

So becasue I can't airstrike the board by official rules then there is no strategy in playing? This seems flat out asinine. It is completely possible to work within a set of rules and still have a strategy for winning. Ask any lawyer.

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

Just because it is not indicative of real life does not mean it cannot aid you in thinking ahead, planning your next move, and thinking critically(which I will say is important when figuring out your complaints against something). Just becasue it is not complicated does not mean it is devoid of any value.

Anyone else share this view with me?

I'm sure anyone who sucks at the game does. After all, if you can't win, just complain about how the game is bullshit.

 

[Xero Scythe]

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 strategizing? if you truly play chess, you wouldn't say anything like that. often, you have to see the entire game from the first four moves. plus, there are differences to the teams. white has a pre-emptive strike, while black can consider the move and retaliate.

 

[Phenakist]

Chess is all about how good the player is, as it has been said before, there is no luck involved whatsoever. Oh and the only "imbalance" is between good and bad strategists

Note: Rules are a good thing, they make things fair, a level playing field, that is when you can truly measure someone on whether they are good or bad at something.

 

[Diablini]

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?

I can prove you wrong in each of your ridiculous arguments.

1. If I cheat my way to your king with my queen, would you think that would be okay?
2. In real life a soldier can flank and shoot and stuff, but he can't fly or teleport. Each figure has multiple uses of any piece, the pawn can't move backwards because that is called deserting and is punished by death. There are all so many examples of this. What more do you want from the game?
3. If you start with a pawn and a king and I start with 10 queens and a king, would that be a good game?

 

[Rancid0ffspring]

I think chess is a great game. It's about patience strategy & cunning. Loved the game from a young age & it's probably because of chess that I enjoy most strategy games & rpg's. Using the whole of your army/team as one rather than run & gun games where you are only one person.

Also what game could be more fair than giving 2 armies identical units starting in the same positions?

 

[Spinwhiz]

Chess is awesome strictly because it takes skill and "luck" is pretty much taken out of the equation.

 

[TrailerDrake]

No, no I don't share your views. Chess is an intelligent game for intelligent people, if you can't handle the rules and complain about how it works, then don't play it. Simple right?

 

[j0z]

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.

Yes, it is a game designed to pit the mind's of the two opponents against each other, not the pieces themselves. By leveling the playing field so that each army is just as powerful as the other, your only advantage is your mind.

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.

Ever here of the game called Life? as in real life? We have rules also, and we are pretty free.
Also, look at real warfare, can the units not only move a certain distance in one day? The different movement rules for each piece is put in to increase strategy, not decrease it.

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

I will say it again, the game is a test of the mind, it is to see which player has more strategy. It is not meant to be a realistic war game.

Anyone else share this view with me?

I don't.

I think you are just bad at chess, and therefor you do not like the game. I think it is one of the fairest games out there, there is no chance, you are completely in control of your own fate, nothing stands between you and victory except your opponent.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

It'd save a hell of a lot of lives if generals just played chess instead of actually getting soldiers to fight.

I've said this more times than you can imagine. It just makes more sense. Who needs to spend that much money on inventing and distributing weapons and bombs when you could have a quick game of chess to see who wins?

 

[Knight Templar]

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

What game exsists that has one team/player given a clear advantage? Two people with the same tools yet only one can win, sounds like a game to me.

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.

Every strategy is based on a system of rules. In real life thoe rules are made by what you have to use, and the laws of nature and physics. This is bay far the most stupid thing you have said.
If I play a game of chess and have a plan to use godzilla to eat all the opposing forces, whose fault is it that I am unable to do this? The game for rules, or me for ignoring the rules in favor of pipe dreams.

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

This confuses me, how does it do that?
I have a rating of 566, a person I beat the other week had a rating of 972, at the start of that match it was assumed that he was better than me. He did not get any additional help because of this and neither did I because if he was better he would beat me using only what was open for him to use.

If what you say is true of chess then it would be true of moast game in the world.

EDIT: I'm going to be in a chess tournament today.

 

[Hyper-space]

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

the harsh truth......