Yes, it means it's above all a game of skill in which chance factors at its bare minimum. Whether you find it boring or entertaining depends who you're playing against. Some adversaries are boring as hell, others make me want to keep playing over and over. It's not about winning or losing, it's about trumping the other person's strategy without them realizing it until it's too late. I never needed more of anything to be thrilled by it, just good players.MrPhyntch said:
I'd like to consider chess as something similar to a wheel you can't make it better. Sure variations exists but they never gained as much popularity as the game they stem from and your usual two player chess game is just rich with variations and tactics. I recommend delving into some literature on the subject you should see there is much more to the game than what we can see on the surface.Kahani said:
No it isn't. There's no such thing.Johnny Novgorod said:
Noughts and crosses and connect 4 are both also purely games of skill. They're both also shit. Just because a game doesn't involve chance doesn't mean it's somehow perfect.
And yet we have made wheels better numerous times throughout their history.james.sponge said:
Clearly you know very little about chess. Variations such as speed chess are actually far more common than the base unrestricted game, for the simple reason that people rarely have the several hours free needed to play. And before anyone tries to claim that a time limit isn't really a variation, it actually changes the game completely. In a full length game the early moves are almost irrelevant, with various standard openings being extremely common, and the end game is the important part. In blitz chess, you will almost never get anywhere near the end game. Completely different play styles and strategies are needed.
"We"? Just because you don't know much about the game doesn't mean everyone else is in the same situation.
You mean we improved the shape?Kahani said:
Sorry but introducing time limit for each move does not necessarily change the foundation of the game (i.e. core rules, move patterns, board size just like the variation in question does) and this was the thing I was referring to.
You may be more versed in the game than I am but no need to be a rude twat.
What does that have to do with anything. You didn't say anything about shape, you simply said that we can't make wheels better. That claim was not true.james.sponge said:
This is basically the same as the point above. Just because variations are not something you have thought of personally does not mean they are not variations. A metal wheel with spokes and rubber tyres is a huge improvement over a crude stone block, even though the shape is essentially the same. Similarly, as I already explained, you can keep the basic rules of chess the same while still making huge changes to the game.
Perhaps if you didn't start out by being a condescending twat arguing about something you admit to not actually understanding, I wouldn't be rude in return.
well it does, I was referring to the concept of the wheel not material it was made from and that's the root of our misunderstanding.Kahani said:
Well sorry for that, have a cookie.
Chess is most certainly not a perfect game. It is extremely popular in western culture, but extremely popular is not the same thing as perfect. There are a number of reasons why chess is not a perfect game. Many have even argued it is a bad game.james.sponge said:
I have to disagree. I think just because most people are just (pardon my language) too stupid to think of strategies because it's "boring" doesn't mean the game in itself is. Such things as "boring" or "fun" are entirely subjective appreciations, but saying a game is boring because it envolves actual thinking instead of chance is just... really dumb.MrPhyntch said:
Yes, it means it's mathematically perfect. There are no odds and lose ends tipping the game either way save for the initial coin toss. Once you clear that out, it's all about skill. And to device a game where skill is the foremost - if not the only - deciding factor in the outcome sounds as close to mathematical perfection as you can get. Anyone who wins a game of chess has done so purely on skill.Kahani said:
I could say that if rock paper scissors featured any sort of strategy, or if League of Legends maps, spawns and player position weren't completely randomized every round.DjinnFor said:
No qualifiers required. Rock paper scissors is mathematically perfect and purely a game of skill. Your original statements had absolutely no reference to "strategy", just some vaguely defined notion of "skill".Johnny Novgorod said:
...except, they already aren't? The only thing that differs from one side or the other is pick order.Johnny Novgorod said:
My vague notion of skill is the same vague notion the dictionary has of the word, i.e. "the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc". Rock papers scissors is a guessing game relying solely on luck and requiring no ability, knowledge, practice or aptitude.DjinnFor said:
So I take it you profess complete ignorance regarding both examples I gave, eh?Johnny Novgorod said:
Arrogance won't win you any arguments.DjinnFor said:
And where are mathematics in that? I've been defending chess at the ultimate mathematically even game. Not for reading "the psychological and biological".
Talking down won't win you any arguments either.
Poker and card games overall are entirely chance-based. What you do with the cards you have is entirely up to you, and skill does factor in, but there's no such thing as mathematical perfection in its premise. Outcome is based on what you can do with what you have, or what you make other people think you have. There's no even starting point, in which everybody has the same resources - i.e. the same 16 chess pieces in the same order.