I hereby dislike chess.

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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?

I'll repeat:

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

 

[More Fun To Compute]

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.

It's been analysed statistically and they do. Going first means that if you are playing aggressively you can keep the other player on their back foot. Experienced players take turns playing black and white and play an even number of games. It probably doesn't make so much of a difference with beginners due to the number of mistakes made in a match.

 

[TheMatt]

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?

Have you tried GO? you may enjoy it. It makes chess look like snakes and ladders.

 

[SonicSoulstrike96]

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. 3 is wrong just outright. Especially when you look at the pieces. They aren't equal in power, ability, or usefulness. Plus, it's still possible to win even if you're at an early disadvantage. And also, not every piece is a king. If you're arguing about fairness and equality, it's because you're probably a pawn. You're not in the same position as someone who is a king is.

Rules? Yeah, there are rules. They symbolize reality in a way. No one piece is all overpowerful and indestructible. As for taking turns- both sides are gonna act at around the same time, and either directly against or directly as a result of the adversary. What you do with your turns is the most important part. How you use your time and abilities.

It's reality that no one can do absolutely everything one would like to. It's what you do given all the possibilities of what you CAN do.

Really, chess deserves a lot more credit than you give it.

 

[Pimppeter2]

If there were less rules the game would suck

Like checkers

 

[coldfrog]

So you want chess to give you 5 queens and the opponent nothing but pawns?

This is interesting. I thought about this for a while. Lets design a game of chess where one player has exactly five queens and the other has 15 pawns. Of course each side has a king. Who would win? Is it entirely obvious? In fact, is this game unbalanced, and if so, to which side? It's not entirely obvious to me that the queens would win yet. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

And THIS is actually what I like most about chess. Not the game from start to finish, but puzzles and variations. The game of chess itself isn't so interesting to me because of how much analysis it's taken over the years. If you don't read a book about chess, you can't even begin to be competitive in it. However, the game could still be fun to amateurs who don't care about that crap, but unfortunately the concept of reading books to get good at it totally ruined my opinion of the game.

Modern board games, however, are awesome.

 

[DarkRyter]

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?

1. Being a game, it must be balanced. If however, you wish to disregard balance, discard some of one player's pieces.

2. A true strategist works around the rules, and uses them to his advantage.

3. Once again, balance. The point of the game is to test the skills of the two players, so other variables must be controlled and equal.

Hate chess for the reasons I hate chess. It's really boring.

 

[SonicSoulstrike96]

So you want chess to give you 5 queens and the opponent nothing but pawns?

This is interesting. I thought about this for a while. Lets design a game of chess where one player has exactly five queens and the other has 15 pawns. Of course each side has a king. Who would win? Is it entirely obvious? In fact, is this game unbalanced, and if so, to which side? It's not entirely obvious to me that the queens would win yet. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

And THIS is actually what I like most about chess. Not the game from start to finish, but puzzles and variations. The game of chess itself isn't so interesting to me because of how much analysis it's taken over the years. If you don't read a book about chess, you can't even begin to be competitive in it. However, the game could still be fun to amateurs who don't care about that crap, but unfortunately the concept of reading books to get good at it totally ruined my opinion of the game.

Modern board games, however, are awesome.

lol. you think you need to read to get good, instead of playing and figuring it out... like with every other game. XD


Just don't start off playing your local tournament winner.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I disagree.

It isn't meant to teach you the finer points of war, for that you need someone like Sun Tzu. What chess is meant to teach you is patience, the ability to plan ahead and how to use what you have at your disposal to achieve the greater objective. The biggest thing it teaches is that you must learn to balance your armies weaknesses and figure out how to utilise different units together to multiplies their strengths.

The overall lesson is quite simple really: Single raids to complete minor objectives are often the quickest way to defeat. This is something I only really just learned, ironically enough. Quick strikes to take out enemy while sacrificing what might seem to be a minor unit at the time can very well bleed your army dry even if you think your striking a crippling blow at the enemy.

Personally: I wish we could reduce the damn queen back to the pathetic piece it originally was: the vizier. The vizier used to be able to move a single square, diagonally, and that was it. This means there used to have to be forethought and tactic when you 'promoted' a unit, as you had to choose between a knight, bishop or a rook and each had different strengths and weaknesses.

Now... take the queen, it is a rock and a bishop in one!

 

[Gerazzi]

I can beat my dad rather easily, but my grandfather pwns ass.

But yes, there is no reason to play chess other than looking like an arrogant richboy.

 

[coldfrog]

So you want chess to give you 5 queens and the opponent nothing but pawns?

This is interesting. I thought about this for a while. Lets design a game of chess where one player has exactly five queens and the other has 15 pawns. Of course each side has a king. Who would win? Is it entirely obvious? In fact, is this game unbalanced, and if so, to which side? It's not entirely obvious to me that the queens would win yet. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

And THIS is actually what I like most about chess. Not the game from start to finish, but puzzles and variations. The game of chess itself isn't so interesting to me because of how much analysis it's taken over the years. If you don't read a book about chess, you can't even begin to be competitive in it. However, the game could still be fun to amateurs who don't care about that crap, but unfortunately the concept of reading books to get good at it totally ruined my opinion of the game.

Modern board games, however, are awesome.

lol. you think you need to read to get good, instead of playing and figuring it out... like with every other game. XD


Just don't start off playing your local tournament winner.

It's not that I think I NEED to read to be good, more the fact that it has been beaten to death with a dead horse. I should also note, my use of the word 'competitive' here meant competitive on a worldwide level. I just think that there a lot of other more interesting games in existence right now.

Now, everyone who likes chess go try Gipf. Just as much forethought required, and a simpler game to boot.

 

[infinisynth]

You're wrong about the fairness of chess. One player always has an advantage over the other one, it's called intelligence. Chess is a game of intelligence like most everything else in life and usually the smarter player wins. Thats the point.

 

[Deadpool062]

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

.
guess your having a bad day today, ever hear of the golden rule? Im pretty sure the OP hates you now... meanie. and to the writer of the thread. Well yea, you could have given more reason to hate it such as a personal experience though.

 

[theunreliablecritic]

no for this is as a war should be

on a table in a game played fairly

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

bomb the king with a plane full of pawns.......and then stop giving them oil .... and then buy a heart dialysis machine and randomely die in a cave ....in the desert....... and the world will never know........
.........

 

[Xojins]

Yea... people tend to complain about games they suck at.

 

[theunreliablecritic]

Yea... people tend to complain about games they suck at.

Yea... people tend to complain about games they suck at.

na ya think!!!!

 

[theunreliablecritic]

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.

It's been analysed statistically and they do. Going first means that if you are playing aggressively you can keep the other player on their back foot. Experienced players take turns playing black and white and play an even number of games. It probably doesn't make so much of a difference with beginners due to the number of mistakes made in a match.

so to put it in english, black is and will always be the better, and easier , side to play

 

[Oyster_Boy]

Mate with you all ranting about Chess, try Go. Now that game is deep. Loads deeper than Chess, when two amateur Go players have a game the hardest bit if working out when it's ended.

BTW, I SUCK at Go.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

so to put it in english, black is and will always be the better, and easier , side to play

It's much easier to lose than win. This is true.