>0 RNG >white goes first >patriarchal monarchy >war simulator >centuries of history >cheap to produce >simple to learn, hard to master >very asthetic
if it had cute anime girls as pieces scissoring each other when taken it would be perfect
Xiangqi is great. The cannons and chariots force you to play much more aggressively in the early game compared to chess. It has a very different feel even though it's chess-like, like it's more fast paced.
>King is weak and pathetic, reduced to cowering behind his troops instead of leading them from the front. >Prime minister is most powerful peace.
Chess is a deeply subversive game.
In old chess variants, vizier had the same moveset as a king, but was disposable.
The modern super-powerful moveset was given to it by Spanish at the same time they renamed it to a queen, all to stroke the ego of their IRL queen at the time. Which makes it one of the oldest examples of girl power pandering in games.
>strongest unit is a femoid
Only in the cringe westoid version. It's supposed to be a vizier.
when they changed the name from vizier to queen it was one of the weakest pieces in the game. It could only move diagonally and only one space at a time. The only weaker piece was the pawn(which could only promote into it).
Then, later, they made it the best piece that just gets to go wherever the frick it wants.
>>war simulator >can't model formations >can't model ranged weapons >can't model logistics >can't model terrain >can't model screening attacks, delaying actions, envelopment, etc...
Shit game, maybe it was good for the middle ages I guess, but I'll stick to better simulations we have today.
Meh, it gets boring as you claim the elo, 1500s, 1600s 1700s an some 1800s are superfun, a lot of people taking gambits, launching crazy attacks, making sacrifices that you check later and didn't really work but scared the opponent... 1900s suddenly everyone is playing the boring versions of caro khans and frenchs... and 2000s won't take a fricking gambit if they don't know (or have in another window) the refutation.
I don't know why, maybe they think that if they grind a bit more they will play against titled players, which is ridiculous, but 2000+ gets really boring for me.
More of people cheating in the endgame at those levels too.
Had someone try to play "Arabic" backgammon with me, where the pieces all started off the board and instead of taking the enemy piece off when you land on it, you would place your piece above theirs and they couldn't move or land on you until you moved. Anyone got any experience with this version of the game?
My favourite strategy is, moving all of my pieces except one to the end, locking all positions on the enemy's home board. Then when he gets wienery and starts saying that he has already won, because he started first to remove checkers, I land the one checker left on one of his. You can see the color drain on his face as he understands that he is completely helpless.
It is quite risky and doesn't work if the opponent is lucky, but I have claimed some amazing victories doing that.
>Chess is not a strategy game because you don't produce any units >Chess is a turn based tactics game because you start with all the units you can have
He's right you know. It's always cute when chess players talk about chess "strategy" and what they really mean is just chess tactics but several moves ahead.
*tips fedora*
you are using the casual definition of strategy, similar to the casual definition of theory and the scientific one
this is a board for specialists where strategy has a specific definition
please keep up, or go back to Ganker
1 year ago
Anonymous
The man and the woman are on the wrong side of that chart.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Female... artist... no. Anon is right, those are just attention prostitutes.
1 year ago
Anonymous
A male artist who would describes a colour as "flora", "maraschino" or "bubblegum" must be castrated and then executed violently
1 year ago
Anonymous
I agree, same with ESLgays like yourself.
1 year ago
Anonymous
sea foam is clearly blue
which moron made that picture?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>this is a board for specialists where strategy has a specific definition
please keep up, or go back to Ganker
the problem with chess is that it's essentially so simple that basic strategy makes your head hurt. That's part of the reasons why Robert j Fish became insane.
As someone who plays both chess and go it bothers me how every time chess is brought up anywhere, there's a knee-jerk response from someone bringing up go and how it's way better. Chess and go are very similar type of game, they both have memorization, they both have strategy. If you think go is so much better it's either because you're either a weeb or an edgy contrarian, and in either case you probably haven't actually played go very much.
Not that there's anything wrong with weebs or edgy contrarians. I just don't think chess deserves the flak it gets. It's a fine game.
the more opening theory you understand the less mystical the game is, but it's the quintessential cerebral game to normies and they all "like to play the sicilian" but often fail the first move
>fully deterministic >uncompensated advantage for one side >most efficient mastering strategy is to memorize every opening as deep as one can
Literal npc pastime.
This. If you put even a grandmsster like Kasparov, against a Starcraft expert, he would end up crying not knowing what to do, because Chess has a limited set of moves, whereas strategy games do not.
His example is silly, but he's not wrong in essence. The more variables you have to account for and the more leeway players have, the more complex the game. Take card games for example: at high levels everyone is counting cards and crunching probabilities in their head, yet this is not nearly enough to win consistently. There's a reason why computers play chess better than humans and yet fail miserably at seemingly simpler games like poker and bridge.
Google's deep mind only recently was able to surpass Starcraft players. Computers have beaten world Chess champions since the last century. Computationally and intellectually strategy games are far deeper than chess, anything else is copium.
they should make simulturn chess, 99% of chess' problems would disappear
also make it so you can't promote pawns to queens
RNG is gay af, the determinism is one of the best parts of chess
Complete joke compared to Go. And I'm not meming, literally everyone to try and play both seriously (and even less seriously) sees the massive difference in depth, scope, strategy and even philosophy. There is a reason why Go was supposed to be the ultimate AI test. Not only for it's numerical complexity, but its concepts that were thought to be only intuitively accessible.
Of course, both games are that hard for human that you can immerse yourself to them, like one can swim in swimming pool or in ocean. But anyone interested really holding the mirror to their very souls and see their limits of thinking, personality and ideas, Go is the only choice. Chess is best for children and autistic memorization, if that's your thing.
>AI test
Anon no AI can even play chess at a decent level. What you are thinking of is a brute force algorithm, which is what programs like Deep Blue and Stock Fish are. The reason why this hasn't been done in go is because computer hardware isn't capable of calculating every move within a reasonable amount of time. Chess may have significantly less moves than go, but chess has far more complexity for any given move. Though ultimately both games are heavily flawed
Hardly ever one comes across to a post where everything is so wrong. First of all, I don't even get your point commenting to the AI idea - it's a well known fact Go was supposed to be test for AI that supposedly goes beyond number crunching (as it did).
>Anon no AI can even play chess at a decent level
Completely false. Even traditional engines have dominated profesisonal human players for 10-15 years, not to mention those that have come after.
>What you are thinking of is a brute force algorithm
I'm not, moron, you are.
>The reason why this hasn't been done in go is because computer hardware isn't capable of calculating every move within a reasonable amount of time. Chess may have significantly less moves than go, but chess has far more complexity for any given move. Though ultimately both games are heavily flawed
Utterly false again. Go has both more possible moves and more possible variations to crunch through. The complexity of any given situation past first five moves in Go is categorically deeper than that of chess - case in point why indeed number crunchers could work with chess engines like deep blue, but not in Go. You are contradicting yourself. And you are simply wrong. moron Black person chess player slav scum.
>Go was supposed to be test for AI
Maybe in some circles, but you are acting like AI is at a point to even face top players at any game with complex strategies and that go is the last hold out >traditional engines
Which brute force through every possible variation to decide what move has the highest chance of winning. That's not the same as AI anon >Go has both more possible moves and more possible variations to crunch through
Yes I said that >complexity of any given situation past first five moves in Go is categorically deeper than that of chess
If you count every possible move then yes, though when accounting for reasonable moves this will vary drastically. Anyways I was saying that in any given one single move, that chess had more complexity, this is because chess pieces have more variety >moron Black person chess player slav scum >reddit spacing
Please go back to 2channel you cyrpto chink
I'm not the other guy.
Isn't AI just a massive forced algorithm? Isn't a chess bot just very small AI?
Also, AlphaZero is definitely AI and it defeated Stockfish
No I meant that chess programs like Deepblue and Stockfish work by analyzing every possible move, they do this by brute force. It's not the same as a computer outsmarting a player like that anon was implying. It's the equivalent of beating the best player while you have a book with every move ever and all the time in the world, obviously you wouldn't lose against even the best if you cheated like that. Dunno about Alphazero but it probably works the same, that or it was designed specifically to beat Stockfish, which could mean that it under performs in every other situation. As far as calling them AI, the most simplistic video game bots are called AI, but they are not intelligent in the slightest. When people say AI, they're usually referring to a currently fictional idea of a computer as smart as a human if not smarter
Go was the top test in classical games that in turn were seen major steps in AI development. You don't know what you are talking about. What we have know are general AIs that can excell and beat human players at any given game without even researcher's output explaining the game with examples. Besides, your distinction of 'real AI' and rest of the algorithm models is utterly pointless here and sidesteps the original issue. Brute forcing was the issue of 90's, not anymore. Since you don't have actually any knowledge of the field, you dismiss every practical advancement of AI with this romantic notion of "real AI" that has some magical outsmarting, intuitive knowledge. That doesn't exist, and most likely never even needs to. Finally, as if it wasn't clear already by your lack of knowledge of AIs, existence of modern chess engines and alphazero, it's obvious you don't have a clue what complexity and depth mean. The variance of individual chess piece compared to interconnectivity of tens of different go stones and their relation to every possible move to be added is ridiciously small. At any given move, Go has more depth, which was easily proven by the fact chess was brute forced 20 years ago, but Go had to employ neural network learning to heavily scope down possible "good moves" to think ahed. While you might want to hold on your romantic ideal of this not being real AI, rest of the world will employ these tools to replace intelligence of humans in various areas. So get fricked, nerd.
I studied the image beforehand and didn't see that mate so don't feel bad. Unless you still lost in this position in which case yes seppuku immediately.
>his favourite opening is the first one any new player learns that isn't a basic b***h king/queen pawn
imagine not only choosing one of the more conventional openings, but also one of the most wishy-washy, transpositional ones as well
as for me, i favour the obnoxious, counterintuitive bullshit of Alekhine's Defence, where following the basic principles of chess makes white lose
The point of Alekhine's Defence is that rather than attempting to develop pieces or control the centre, Black instead just has a Knight jump in and make as big of a mess as possible. Because Black doesn't push pawns into the middle, White gets to do it essentially for free, but it's a trap: the fact that there's this Knight jumping around everywhere that White has to deal with means that their centre is a disaster. They have to build around it. So, while they theoretically control the centre, in reality their pawn structure ends up so haphazard that all it really does is block off their own development, and their control completely collapses as soon as Black finds an opening.
All the moves that would normally be good are bad. Kicking the knight with pawns is bad, pushing into the centre is bad, everything a player who grasps the fundamentals thinks they should do is bad.
As an example, pic related is one of the common resulting lines. You let them move right up into the centre, but the resulting structure has no backbone and is a struggle for White to actually accomplish anything with.
I like Chess960 for that RNG fix.
>0 RNG
>white goes first
>patriarchal monarchy
>war simulator
>centuries of history
>cheap to produce
>simple to learn, hard to master
>very asthetic
if it had cute anime girls as pieces scissoring each other when taken it would be perfect
>strongest unit is a femoid
>strongest unit is a femoid
Only in the cringe westoid version. It's supposed to be a vizier.
>vizier
who the frick invented chess? The Persians?
Indians. In Xiangqi it's called advisor and there are two of them
Xiangqi is great. The cannons and chariots force you to play much more aggressively in the early game compared to chess. It has a very different feel even though it's chess-like, like it's more fast paced.
Indians didn't invent chess. This is false. It was actually invented in Nubia.
Ay yo dem chess is a depiction of ancient black folx defending against invasion of white devils.
>Hannibal
>African kings
He wasn't a king.
>King is weak and pathetic, reduced to cowering behind his troops instead of leading them from the front.
>Prime minister is most powerful peace.
Chess is a deeply subversive game.
In old chess variants, vizier had the same moveset as a king, but was disposable.
The modern super-powerful moveset was given to it by Spanish at the same time they renamed it to a queen, all to stroke the ego of their IRL queen at the time. Which makes it one of the oldest examples of girl power pandering in games.
Many such cases
it's satirical commentary
Yes.
when they changed the name from vizier to queen it was one of the weakest pieces in the game. It could only move diagonally and only one space at a time. The only weaker piece was the pawn(which could only promote into it).
Then, later, they made it the best piece that just gets to go wherever the frick it wants.
Speaking of which, why is there no chess game with anime girls like Mahjong Souls? You'd think it's an obvious choice for easy gacha money
>>war simulator
>can't model formations
>can't model ranged weapons
>can't model logistics
>can't model terrain
>can't model screening attacks, delaying actions, envelopment, etc...
Shit game, maybe it was good for the middle ages I guess, but I'll stick to better simulations we have today.
>can't model formations
Pawn formations
>can't model ranged weapons
Bishops, rooks, queens
>can't model logistics
Rerouting knights
>can't model terrain
Light square vs dark square control, locked pawn structures
>can't model screening attacks, delaying actions, envelopment, etc...
Nice bait post tho
set openings or lose is gay
>play inferior to your opponent in the opening
>lose
i don't see what's wrong with this
Meh, it gets boring as you claim the elo, 1500s, 1600s 1700s an some 1800s are superfun, a lot of people taking gambits, launching crazy attacks, making sacrifices that you check later and didn't really work but scared the opponent... 1900s suddenly everyone is playing the boring versions of caro khans and frenchs... and 2000s won't take a fricking gambit if they don't know (or have in another window) the refutation.
I don't know why, maybe they think that if they grind a bit more they will play against titled players, which is ridiculous, but 2000+ gets really boring for me.
More of people cheating in the endgame at those levels too.
filtered
sub1000s talking mad shit
>Cheating
>Online chess
What he hacks the server to delete your pieces?
they use ai
They have engines playing for them
Make way for the KING
The true GOAT
Had someone try to play "Arabic" backgammon with me, where the pieces all started off the board and instead of taking the enemy piece off when you land on it, you would place your piece above theirs and they couldn't move or land on you until you moved. Anyone got any experience with this version of the game?
My favourite strategy is, moving all of my pieces except one to the end, locking all positions on the enemy's home board. Then when he gets wienery and starts saying that he has already won, because he started first to remove checkers, I land the one checker left on one of his. You can see the color drain on his face as he understands that he is completely helpless.
It is quite risky and doesn't work if the opponent is lucky, but I have claimed some amazing victories doing that.
t. Anwar Sadat
Simplistic and gamey garbage
Go is better. So simple a game even aliens have likely invented it
>Go is better.
Chinese mog westoids yet again
Chess is not a strategy game because you don't produce any units
Chess is a turn based tactics game because you start with all the units you can have
>Chess is not a strategy game because you don't produce any units
>Chess is a turn based tactics game because you start with all the units you can have
He's right you know. It's always cute when chess players talk about chess "strategy" and what they really mean is just chess tactics but several moves ahead.
*tips fedora*
strategy is a long term plan which takes you where you want, which definitely exists in chess you brainlet
by your definition, Sorry is a strategy game
Sorry does have some strategy, it's just that it's simple for children. Are you trying to claim you've poked a hole in his point or something?
You are using the layperson's definition of strategy. This is a specialized board. Learn the lingo or go be a causal someplace else
>layperson
american spotted, opinion discarded
So we're going (again) to discuss our favorite demon killing strategies in the well know strategy game Doom II?
problem?
you are using the casual definition of strategy, similar to the casual definition of theory and the scientific one
this is a board for specialists where strategy has a specific definition
please keep up, or go back to Ganker
The man and the woman are on the wrong side of that chart.
Female... artist... no. Anon is right, those are just attention prostitutes.
A male artist who would describes a colour as "flora", "maraschino" or "bubblegum" must be castrated and then executed violently
I agree, same with ESLgays like yourself.
sea foam is clearly blue
which moron made that picture?
>this is a board for specialists where strategy has a specific definition
please keep up, or go back to Ganker
>our favorite demon killing strategies in the well know strategy game Doom II?
It exists and is pretty good.
>coalson
opinion discarded
hwabag albeit
isn't chess actually just a memory game at the higher levels? to me it seems closer to Karuta... Have you seen GO?
the problem with chess is that it's essentially so simple that basic strategy makes your head hurt. That's part of the reasons why Robert j Fish became insane.
He went insane because of his israeli blood.
the chess halfwit fears the go board
>gogay thinks his game is hardcore
Bigger Board == Bigger Strategy tho.
See anon it's not the size of your board, it's what ya do with it
>any game that has perfect imformation
>algorithm memorization
>strategy
Honestly this, at a high level its hard to call it strategy at all
it fulfills the game theory definition of strategy,
>branch of mathematics defines something as a math problem
you don't say
Any Prisoner's Dilemma pros here?
>greatest strategy game of all time?
>you can end in a drawn
Garbage game for brainlets and anal beads enthousiasts.
>brainlets
>'enthousiasts'
lel
would it be possible to check mate a king if it could move like a queen?
I'm thinking that no, or it requires most of the board to be present
You can capture a queen, so you should also be able to mate a king that moves like a queen
no fog of war means you actually get to strategise instead of blind guessing and save scumming
>tfw moved the pawn to g4 instead of just putting the queen on f5
It wasn't until a few moves later I realised that there was a check mate here and I had enough time on the clock to figure it out so why didn't I?
seppuku is my next move
As someone who plays both chess and go it bothers me how every time chess is brought up anywhere, there's a knee-jerk response from someone bringing up go and how it's way better. Chess and go are very similar type of game, they both have memorization, they both have strategy. If you think go is so much better it's either because you're either a weeb or an edgy contrarian, and in either case you probably haven't actually played go very much.
Not that there's anything wrong with weebs or edgy contrarians. I just don't think chess deserves the flak it gets. It's a fine game.
Ironically it's probably easier to master than older Paradox games.
the more opening theory you understand the less mystical the game is, but it's the quintessential cerebral game to normies and they all "like to play the sicilian" but often fail the first move
because murray head did a song called one night in bangkok and forever more, chess was the greatest game ever
Solved game
>fully deterministic
>uncompensated advantage for one side
>most efficient mastering strategy is to memorize every opening as deep as one can
Literal npc pastime.
This. If you put even a grandmsster like Kasparov, against a Starcraft expert, he would end up crying not knowing what to do, because Chess has a limited set of moves, whereas strategy games do not.
>asiaticclick is more than following a flowchart
The worst part is that your probably and unironically believe that.
His example is silly, but he's not wrong in essence. The more variables you have to account for and the more leeway players have, the more complex the game. Take card games for example: at high levels everyone is counting cards and crunching probabilities in their head, yet this is not nearly enough to win consistently. There's a reason why computers play chess better than humans and yet fail miserably at seemingly simpler games like poker and bridge.
>your probably and unironically
>esl argues shit opinion
It's like clockwork with you roaches, huh?
>chess is more than following a flowchart
The worst part is that your probably and unironically believe that.
Google's deep mind only recently was able to surpass Starcraft players. Computers have beaten world Chess champions since the last century. Computationally and intellectually strategy games are far deeper than chess, anything else is copium.
>Muh vidya
have a nice day
they should make simulturn chess, 99% of chess' problems would disappear
also make it so you can't promote pawns to queens
RNG is gay af, the determinism is one of the best parts of chess
>also make it so you can't promote pawns to queens
Yeah better remove the entire endgame part to create a ton of draws.
>can’t even beat his opponent without cheese
you could have just said you were stupid
>talks about cheese when when cheese is what it takes to win before endgame
Nobody in this thread will ever be in theory 10 moves into any of our games. Who cares what the game is like for god level autists?
Very surprised WOTC hasn't made a Dragonchess set, even if it was only for the novelty.
>strategy
>bro just memorize openings, counters, optimal moves, etc.
literally the asiaticclick of the tabletop world.
Complete joke compared to Go. And I'm not meming, literally everyone to try and play both seriously (and even less seriously) sees the massive difference in depth, scope, strategy and even philosophy. There is a reason why Go was supposed to be the ultimate AI test. Not only for it's numerical complexity, but its concepts that were thought to be only intuitively accessible.
Of course, both games are that hard for human that you can immerse yourself to them, like one can swim in swimming pool or in ocean. But anyone interested really holding the mirror to their very souls and see their limits of thinking, personality and ideas, Go is the only choice. Chess is best for children and autistic memorization, if that's your thing.
>AI test
Anon no AI can even play chess at a decent level. What you are thinking of is a brute force algorithm, which is what programs like Deep Blue and Stock Fish are. The reason why this hasn't been done in go is because computer hardware isn't capable of calculating every move within a reasonable amount of time. Chess may have significantly less moves than go, but chess has far more complexity for any given move. Though ultimately both games are heavily flawed
Hardly ever one comes across to a post where everything is so wrong. First of all, I don't even get your point commenting to the AI idea - it's a well known fact Go was supposed to be test for AI that supposedly goes beyond number crunching (as it did).
>Anon no AI can even play chess at a decent level
Completely false. Even traditional engines have dominated profesisonal human players for 10-15 years, not to mention those that have come after.
>What you are thinking of is a brute force algorithm
I'm not, moron, you are.
>The reason why this hasn't been done in go is because computer hardware isn't capable of calculating every move within a reasonable amount of time. Chess may have significantly less moves than go, but chess has far more complexity for any given move. Though ultimately both games are heavily flawed
Utterly false again. Go has both more possible moves and more possible variations to crunch through. The complexity of any given situation past first five moves in Go is categorically deeper than that of chess - case in point why indeed number crunchers could work with chess engines like deep blue, but not in Go. You are contradicting yourself. And you are simply wrong. moron Black person chess player slav scum.
>Go was supposed to be test for AI
Maybe in some circles, but you are acting like AI is at a point to even face top players at any game with complex strategies and that go is the last hold out
>traditional engines
Which brute force through every possible variation to decide what move has the highest chance of winning. That's not the same as AI anon
>Go has both more possible moves and more possible variations to crunch through
Yes I said that
>complexity of any given situation past first five moves in Go is categorically deeper than that of chess
If you count every possible move then yes, though when accounting for reasonable moves this will vary drastically. Anyways I was saying that in any given one single move, that chess had more complexity, this is because chess pieces have more variety
>moron Black person chess player slav scum
>reddit spacing
Please go back to 2channel you cyrpto chink
I'm not the other guy.
Isn't AI just a massive forced algorithm? Isn't a chess bot just very small AI?
Also, AlphaZero is definitely AI and it defeated Stockfish
No I meant that chess programs like Deepblue and Stockfish work by analyzing every possible move, they do this by brute force. It's not the same as a computer outsmarting a player like that anon was implying. It's the equivalent of beating the best player while you have a book with every move ever and all the time in the world, obviously you wouldn't lose against even the best if you cheated like that. Dunno about Alphazero but it probably works the same, that or it was designed specifically to beat Stockfish, which could mean that it under performs in every other situation. As far as calling them AI, the most simplistic video game bots are called AI, but they are not intelligent in the slightest. When people say AI, they're usually referring to a currently fictional idea of a computer as smart as a human if not smarter
>Isn't AI just a massive forced algorithm?
and we are?
Go was the top test in classical games that in turn were seen major steps in AI development. You don't know what you are talking about. What we have know are general AIs that can excell and beat human players at any given game without even researcher's output explaining the game with examples. Besides, your distinction of 'real AI' and rest of the algorithm models is utterly pointless here and sidesteps the original issue. Brute forcing was the issue of 90's, not anymore. Since you don't have actually any knowledge of the field, you dismiss every practical advancement of AI with this romantic notion of "real AI" that has some magical outsmarting, intuitive knowledge. That doesn't exist, and most likely never even needs to. Finally, as if it wasn't clear already by your lack of knowledge of AIs, existence of modern chess engines and alphazero, it's obvious you don't have a clue what complexity and depth mean. The variance of individual chess piece compared to interconnectivity of tens of different go stones and their relation to every possible move to be added is ridiciously small. At any given move, Go has more depth, which was easily proven by the fact chess was brute forced 20 years ago, but Go had to employ neural network learning to heavily scope down possible "good moves" to think ahed. While you might want to hold on your romantic ideal of this not being real AI, rest of the world will employ these tools to replace intelligence of humans in various areas. So get fricked, nerd.
Shogi is better.
MAGNUS
Even the most simple of computer strategy games are more complex than chess tbqh.
minesweeper is more complex than chess?
Mahjong > Go > Shogi >>> Checkers > Chess
Shogi is very hard to learn. Mostly because nobody plays it and the bots that do are strong.
But I can get some cute cats for pieces so there's that.
just play strategy vidya on vhard
I studied the image beforehand and didn't see that mate so don't feel bad. Unless you still lost in this position in which case yes seppuku immediately.
For me its the English
>his favourite opening is the first one any new player learns that isn't a basic b***h king/queen pawn
imagine not only choosing one of the more conventional openings, but also one of the most wishy-washy, transpositional ones as well
as for me, i favour the obnoxious, counterintuitive bullshit of Alekhine's Defence, where following the basic principles of chess makes white lose
That sounds like fun. Can you explain further?
The point of Alekhine's Defence is that rather than attempting to develop pieces or control the centre, Black instead just has a Knight jump in and make as big of a mess as possible. Because Black doesn't push pawns into the middle, White gets to do it essentially for free, but it's a trap: the fact that there's this Knight jumping around everywhere that White has to deal with means that their centre is a disaster. They have to build around it. So, while they theoretically control the centre, in reality their pawn structure ends up so haphazard that all it really does is block off their own development, and their control completely collapses as soon as Black finds an opening.
All the moves that would normally be good are bad. Kicking the knight with pawns is bad, pushing into the centre is bad, everything a player who grasps the fundamentals thinks they should do is bad.
As an example, pic related is one of the common resulting lines. You let them move right up into the centre, but the resulting structure has no backbone and is a struggle for White to actually accomplish anything with.