>one of the best Chess players who ever lived
>said Chess sucked and was all about memorization and "pre-arrangement"
>anons here still want to waste their time on this poojeet garbage game instead of Go or even Shogi, or, god forbid something contemporary.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Why would those criticisms not apply equally to games like Go and Shougi?
Because they have a bigger viable game tree. Also there literally is no pre-arrangement in Go.
>Because they have a bigger viable game tree
So, they require even more memorization?
Or y'know, heuristics and intuition?
It's the same principal as Chess, though. They're all completely deterministic. Maybe Shougi et al aren't as solved—though I don't actually know—but presumably there is still a lot of memorization one would need to do right off the bat to be competitive lest you lose to the guy who knows all the Shougi openings and their counters. And, ultimately, if the game is more complex but still deterministic, it will lead to more memorization than Chess, not less.
the games tickle different parts of the human psyche. it's not hearts vs spades here, more like bridge vs poker. there's this sense of jealousy and rivalry where I'm not sure the parties involved are even competing over the same resource at all
>competing over the same resource at all
Of course they are! Players! Games need players!
Its as simple as this. Take two people, one has an IQ of 110, the other 125. If they've never played Chess or Go before, the guy with the 125 IQ has much better odds at winning the Go game than the Chess.
Unless you got a source for this I'm calling bullshit,
Chess is way more intuitive and rewarding to short calculation so if anything it would be the opposite
>chess is intuitive
Lol. Lmao even
compared to go it is, at beginner level especially, if you spot a three move tactic and your opponent doesn't you're winning, that's something a random smart guy can do without any prior knowledge, go requires way more long term strategy and understanding at any level, which a beginner won't have regardless so it will comedown almost to randomness
moronic. Go rewards intuition for the most part. It only becomes unintuitive when the players are already familiar with some strategy. Meanwhile, you might just place a knight on the wrong spot and have to move it out of the way for the next half dozen turns, costing a shitton of tempo.
why are people acting like go is some intuitive game when there are a hundred josekis and computer analysis with them. whole thread is just board game western bad, board game eastern good
>that's something a random smart guy can do without any prior knowledge
lol, shows quite obviously you're an ignoramus with either no or little chess experience
>why are people acting like go is some intuitive game when there are a hundred josekis and computer analysis with them. whole thread is just board game western bad, board game eastern good
To be fair, go became memorization hell only a couple decades ago, while chess has been memorization hell for over a century. Even today, go prep is nowhere nearly as onerous as chess prep.
Remember that chess prep is not only about knowing every possible opening, but about specifically analyzing all your opponent's games to find holes in their repertoire. This is still much more important and time consuming in high-level chess than in go.
it's arguable that chess isn't only about knowing all the moves, it's also about understanding why those moves are the 'best' moves, and understanding the structure, the position, being familiar with the general ideas/maneuvers in such structures/positions. which pertains to intuitiveness, too.
also, most people don't know every opening, they have mostly one main opening with white, maybe two, and a response, with black, to e4, d4, Nf3 (though d4 and Nf3 often simply transpose) , if they're not some of the top players; but even those don't assiduously study every opening. when hit with something offbeat like, say, the polish, they also just follow basic opening principals.
>its not 100% about rote memorization, just 89%
Its time to stop
richard rapport is a prime example. he always has some batshit insane idea, which leads to the players being out of theory by move 6 or whatever.
and what i forgot to mention is that go or shogi isn't so much about intuitiveness either. shogi especially involves a lot of calculation, more than chess even. intuitiveness isn't a big component of any of these games; i am not saying, however, that they're devoid of any intuiveness, nepo for example is a very intuitive player, and he's great. and with the rise of formats like blitz and bullet preparation becomes less relevant.
and my last point is that a lot of otb (and to a degree online chess) chess is also psychology.
>and with the rise of formats like blitz and bullet preparation becomes less relevant.
>formats like blitz and bullet preparation becomes less relevant
moron.
>whole thread is just board game western bad, board game eastern good
There is a solution you banditos aren't seeing.
I don't play either game, and if I had to pick one, it would be Shougi simply because I enjoy Japanese. I just find it strange to criticize Chess specifically for things that are true of any complex yet deterministic game.
I think an important difference is that getting good at Chess relies on memorization outright whereas getting good at Go relies on heuristics and abstract pattern matching and the like. It's not that Go is more complex than Chess per se, it's that it has more depth.
Go and Shogi are even more autistic about memorization.
Actually there is you just don't know your book theory, lmao.
I assumed what Fischer meant by PRE-arrangement is that, in contrast to Fischer Random, the opening arrangement of the pieces determines how the game is played. This is obviously not an issue for a game that starts with an empty board. Joseki would just be arragement, without the PRE part.
Also Joseki is dictated by Fuseki whereas in Chess, probably the opposite is more the case.
Here's a better set up for a more random chess: Requires 1 referee, 2 boards, each player arranges their general positions in secret, during play, players can only see opponent's pieces that are being threatened by their move, requires note taking as a side note, pawns also can tell the player by referee if something's blocking their way or they can en passant.
Fog of war. Chess variant
That sounds like a HUGE pain in the ass. Not to mention you might as well just play Warhammer at that point, even the pretense of an abstract game is gone.
That's not what Fischer meant by prearrangement. He was talking about the soviets literally prearranging the game result in order to push one player to the lead in a tournament. It's true that this happened to some extent, but later on Fischer went full schizo and claimed that the entire world championship match between Karpov and Kasparov was prearranged, because his ego couldn't take the fact that they were playing such good chess.
It has nothing to do with memorization or the starting position, it's essentially a cheating accusation.
Shogi yes, Go no
Bobby Fischer should have gotten into Mahjong
Is Mahjong really not a meme? I keep seeing anons talking about it recently. Qrd?
Mahjong's basically a card game. It plays vaguely similar to something like 500 rummy where you make runs/melds and score points for them.
The japanese version adds a defending component by punishing you for giving other people their winning tile which gives it a nice element of risk and endgame pressure.
There's a general on /vg/ for it
Go has a different gameplay loop to chess
The openings aren't as important or forcing and the endgame simplifies your options instead of making them more and more complex.
I fell out of love with chess because I just could not bring myself to spend forever learning endgames and Go, although it probably has even more required learning, has never made it feel like homework.
>gameplay loop
have a nice day
Imagine being this sensitive.
I'm trying to teach you how to leave your midwit ways and this is how you repay me? Disgraceful..
These things only matter at the highest professional level and even then only in classical time control, the two best players in the world are just trading blunders in speed chess as I type this
you are just mad cause you fancied yourself intelligent and assumed you were going to be good at le intelligence game but got your ass destoryed by 3 digit players instead, so now you need to discredit chess as a whole to salvage your ego
You are shit at shogi and go too, you are just playing other weeb failed chess players, below average asians kids would rape you and you know it
many such cases
>you fancied yourself intelligent and assumed you were going to be good at le intelligence game but got your ass destoryed by 3 digit players instead
Yeah. I'm not mad though. Just sad. At least I'm smart enough to know what I keep doing wrong.
He made a chess variant that fixed those problems, which don't matter for amateurs anyway
it's called fischer random or chess960, try it you'll be just as bad at it as you are at chess cause your problem is being dumb not memorisation
Yeah, because he was a narcissist with too much to lose. Fischer random is just another bandaid like castling or en passant. Just let the game die in peace already!
you keep ignoring the fact that memorisation is only a problem for professionals, it has absolutely nothing to do with you being shit at chess, this thread and all your replies are such a pathetic and shameless cope.
Fischer had been retiried for years when he made chess960 and had nothing to lose anymore, castling and enpassant are older than most countries in the world it's so obvious you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about
The funniest thing is you are jsut as bad at shogi and go cause you are such a moron, you'd be a patzer even at connect 4
He built his entire life around Chess. You think he was just going to give up and admit its a fundamentally shit game (which it is)? Sure thing, pal...
>You think he was just going to give up and admit its a fundamentally shit game
He's literally on camera saying as much and that was the entire premise of your thread, you are so dumb it's honestly surreal
chess960 fixed any problem with memorisation and prearrenged draws PROFESSIONAL chess might have, find another cope for being bad
You know you don't get to have your cake and eat it too! The fact that Fischer disavowed chess is my argument. Try to keep up!
Fischer disavowed what he called "old chess", not Fischer Random. And you're still garbage at Fischer Random because your problem isn't memorization (in fact it's not a problem for anyone below master level).
My "problem" is that Chess is a shitty game. This can be surmised by the fact that its the inorganic accumulation of a bunch of tweaks over centuries, rather than a process of design; the probability that it is an exceptional game is very low because of the lack of intentionality behind its rules.
I don't give a frick about your autism, all I care about is whether the game is fun to play. And chess is.
>t.
You totally owned him with that X (formely twitter) image, my fellow anon 🙂
I literally haven't touched Chess in like a decade! And I'm proud of it. I'm not some dumb npc who enjoys thing just because its popular, like you. But actually I do have a vendetta against Chess, but as an abstract game designer, not a frustrated player. But nice psychoanalysis, Freud.
just because there's a perfect line on the circuit we call the chess board doesn't mean we need to hang up our racing helmets. it's hard to stay on that line. sooner or later you're gonna brake early or miss your apex. the contest is in which driver's going to screw up the least. now go play some scrabble!
What does scrabble have to do with anything? If you're this guy
I recommend institutionalization, immediately.
>the single longest most enduring game of all time
>it just had a huge resurgence in popularity
>"let it die"
C O P E
>he thinks that any capable go player doesn't have hundreds of maneuvers memorised
You have never played Go seriously and do not know what you're talking about
I have a picture of Fischer on my wall.
I don’t play chess with professionals who have memorized every opening and strategy.
>called out israelites for what they are
Hans is in a losing position as White vs a 13 year old American IM right now...
im seeing all the hans cope confirmation bias before my eyes right now
your comment, and even the casters on his stream acting like it would be sooooo impossible to find the move to 'castle' and if he does he's a cheat
litearlly not allowed to make good moves otherwise he's a cheater, literally not allowed to lose games otherwise it proves he cheated previously, ignore any other instance where non suspicious GMs have dropped games similarly to little kids or anyone for that matter, can't win em all
I don't think they are implying that he is cheating, 0-0 is just a lot to calculate and he is low on time, they sound more concerned for his position rather than thinking he is cheating. Jurin had to have been given his stream key and vetted to cover this, Hannah and he are probably alright with Hans.
Bobby Fischer was a coward idc what he thinks unless it's about a chess move.
He literally openly spoke against the ZOG as a man with celebrity. That's more brave than you'll ever be!
Go is a horrible chink borefest though and Shogi is just a stiffer version of Chess. Chess despite it's flaws is still the best of the bunch. In the medieval times they de-pojeetified and de-chinkified the game and made it suitable for the white rational man.
Absolutely insane post
Brown and yellow mystery meat hands typed these absolute boiling point seething posts. You know the thing I said is true.
No I know you need help
What in the sweeet frick! Private Pyle, is that a goddamn donut?!
OP doesn't play chess.
I already said I don't and I'm damn proud of how long I have gone without touching the game! You only need to know something about its history and mechanics to see that it is a below-average game. Bobby Fischer learned the hard way.
hoodlum
Why do these threads always devolve into a go vs shogi vs chess flame war.
They are all great games and if you don't enjoy all three you're probably a brainlet
They devolve into a Go and Shogi vs. Chess flamewar. Cope harder. Gochads and Shogichads get along great.
The "war" is always, without fail, non-chessplayers attacking chess for the most moronic reasons that are not even true in the first place.
Name one thing I have said that is objectively wrong!
>"chess is bad cause fischer said it's all about memorization"
>"actually that only matters at the highest levels and fischer himself fixed the "problem" with chess 960"
>"nooo cope chess is inherently bad cause I say so, let me move the goal post to this autistic rambling"
>admit you don't even play chess and have a vendetta against it cause it's more popular than your shitty games
>every time you get btfo you don't even address the arguments and reply with shit like "take your meds",strawman arguments and meme pics
You are unable to make any coherent argument and are constantly outing yourself as a complete moron, one could just as easily argue that chess having been fine tuned for centuries makes it inherently better than some game designed by one person in his mother basement two years ago but it's not even the point.
The main point is chess attracts countless intelligent people from all over the world that are looking for a fun intellectual challenge against the toughest field of any game ever and has done some for centuries, your obscure board games might even be better on paper, though I seriously doubt it, but the fact of the matter is the field for them is a couple smelly neckbeards that couldn't cut it at chess, so no matter how complex they are, they will always be trivial compered to chess
Sorry, didn't care to read your own autistic rambling, bucko.
thanks for proving my point moron
All you did was prove you're a fricking weasel! I never shifted the goalposts and I never strawmanned anyone itt.
Also the one guy I told to take his meds was clearly just unhinged. I could even identify other posts made by him based on how dissociative the thought process was in each. Let's review
Basically admits chess is a shitty game and brings up fricking Scrabble for no reason. I actually even give chess more credit than this myself. This guy is probably just beginning if he thinks the typical game is like this.
Indicates total ignorance of Chess and reality in general
Concludes after getting BTFO with pure racist vitriol
You guys aren't sending your best and brightest. Is this really the kind of argumemntation you stand by?
The best argument against you is that you try to use Fischer as your mouthpiece, but you don't want to use his actual arguments. "Fischer had some problems with chess" is not a supporting argument for your specific issues.
But the fact that chess has a narrow decision tree is entirely owing to the inorganicity of the rules. Do you know anything about conditional probability? Each new rule that chess accumulates over the course of its lifetime lowers the probability of its salvagability as a game. Say we are super woke and we want to win the olympics. Okay, instead of trying to find the best gymnast, we are looking for an athlete who is black, non-binary, a pedophile and under 25. What do you reckon our shot at the gold medal is? Its not that any of these factors fundamentally impede gymnastic ability, its that we have ruled out all the normal athletes, a pool from which the best athlete was likely to be chosen. So yeah, basically chess is an abomination.
You didn't address what I said, incel. Fischer had no issues with any of the slop that you're spouting.
>criticism of inorganic rules explained with the expectation that one of the oldest board games with it's last major update happening a few hundred years ago, using a political analogy to explain why a game that changes very little over the course of hundreds of years will become unplayable... perhaps a few hundred years after our deaths?
This criticism is schizophrenic. If I'm following this correctly variants which are an effect of seeking fixes to shortcomings with the game, are instead a cause of a fatal design problem.
If you have some kind of superstitious effect-cause style reasoning I can see why the game isn't for you.
Nothing superstitious about it, its just probability. I could have just as easily used an example involving jellybeans or something that I don't care to work out. The politics don't even remotely enter into it. The point is just that each time the game is tweaked, you are adding a new condition. Its unlikely at the cross-section of en passant, castling, pawn promotion etc... you're going to have landed on an objectively top-tier game by sheer coincidence. A tweak doesn't necessarily mean the game will be worse, in fact, its supposed to do the opposite but add enough of them up and its like dissonance rubbing against the emergent gameplay, preventing the game from growing organically from a basic set of principles. You might be thinking: well, why do my shitty games stand a better chance? They do not! I have not even had the luck to find a really great game yet like some of my colleagues I have mentioned, and most of what I do as a game designer is curatorial; see if the concept works at all as a game, if not trash it or if it seems good enough, add a small tweak. More often than not tweaking doesn't work. But the point is game designers now cast a wide net and select the choice fish, whereas the net Chess has casted is exceedingly narrow.
As for Go, it was a brilliant accidental discovery and the only thing that can be called a "tweak" is Ko, which has more than justified itself by adding the intrigue of ko-fights which actually magically make otherwise completely useless and preposterous moves critical to the outcome of a game. Apart from that, Go's mechanics are all emergent, like the snapback, seki, monkey-jump and any number of other counter-intuitive phenomena. You might say komi is a tweak as well but it can have absolutely no effect on how the game actually unfolds anymore than the 50 move rule can in Chess (I'm assuming). In fact its demonstrable all it can do is make the game more equitable for the second player. And aside from this, my pal Luis Bolanõs Mures developed a version of Go which removes Ko entirely while preserving all the emergent elements of Ko like triple Ko and Ko fights. I think its called Fugo iirc. Anyway, in terms of tweak to commensurate emergent gameplay ratio, Go clearly has the edge on chess. Chess is like a rusty jalopy with duct-taped rust-holes and Go is like a well-oiled machine.
Actually, who knows maybe the guy who made Go had a dozen other designs himself. We don't really know anything about it at this point.
What's your chess rating? I doubt that you're any good at it if you're not aware of how castling leads to emergent gameplay.
Now connect the analogy to the explaination in this post. What is the tweak in the analogy?
Calculate a probability. I deal in numbers, not superstition. Is it a feeling? Do you not know your feeling is not a probability? I play TCGs and calculate probabilities constantly, my odds and my opponent's. It is a number and a number that I need to reach more accurately than my opponent.
Komi adjustment is not comparable to the 50 move rule. It's comparable to seeding, but that depends on a tournament type and isn't present in a casual match.
I just figured they were both rules that can effect the outcome while not effecting the game mechanically.
>effect the outcome while not affecting the game mechanically
It's this. You're choosing wrong words without knowing it. I don't think you mean probability when you say it, I think you mean possibility. Sorry that I'm that I'm that specific, but that's a part of chess. It is that specific. One misplay can easily be the game.
I make games too. I try to build for intuitive mechanics that lead to interesting decisions worth taking time to consider. I don't expect anything about Chess to necessarily apply to games I make, so it's a bit confusing why you are looking for a connection between Chess to your process. Good luck in your endeavors.
>I don't expect anything about Chess to necessarily apply to games I make, so it's a bit confusing why you are looking for a connection between Chess to your process. Good luck in your endeavors.
I must have said this while I was sleep walking and also deleted it because wtf are you talking about?
You're talking about the game from a design standpoint of how to change the rules rather than a player standpoint of how to adapt to rules changes.
In Go terms, as a player the Komi changes means black has to play more aggressively. As a designer you might describe the situation differently.
I'm not suggesting any rule changes for chess! I'm suggesting a social weaning from Chess mythology.
Yes I admit that Komi makes black play differently but its intuitive that this is only in a beneficial way. If he weren't playing aggressively, how would he be playing? Lazily? Circumspectly? Why should that be rewarded? All komi does is level the playing field, just like all the 50 move rule does in Chess is arbitrarily end the game in a draw.
>If he weren't playing aggressively, how would he be playing? Lazily? Circumspectly? Why should that be rewarded?
Komi wasn't always a rule and has been adjusted multiple times. An aggressive game means looser placement. If you weren't starting at a point disadvantage you could easily play defensively.
Are you high? Drunk?
You can literally tweak it to be whatever you want. Even in tournaments its not just half a point. Its more like 7 and a half! If you reduced it to .5 then White would still be at a disadvantage!
>unlikely at the cross-section of en passant, castling, pawn promotion etc
You larp as some game designer,fiil your mouth with big words and mathematical concepts you don't even remotely understand but you can't tell the difference between adding a new move and a restriction, all those rules were added to make the game more dynamic, they don't "narrow the decision tree" they widen it, there no point arguing with you with logic cause you have the worst case of dunning kruger effect I've ever seen so I'll try another approach
Look at this and try to tell me chess in not art, much less not a good game
Really? You think if you add a rule that says you can move all pieces like a queen, that's not going to make the game simpler while adding more move options? New moves can be just as inimical as restrictions. Ko is a restriction, yet it ramifies the viable game branches in Go by orders of magnitude by giving life to otherwise ridiculous moves. Also I don't literally think chess is a bad game. That's polemical. I just think it doesn't have a deserved reputation and is outstripped by numerous other abstract games. I can kind of appreciate that its cool that White won while losing all his pieces here but I've seen this behaviour in other games. When I used to play a game called Hex Oust, there was a strategy called the 1-stone comeback where you would get your opponent to kill every one of your pieces except 1 and then utterly destroy him because he'd be overpopulated. I know you don't care but now you know how I feel about Chess. Is this even a professional game btw? That makes all the difference.
You sound like every shitter who ever complained about castling or en passant because he lost due to not knowing about the moves. You just don't seem like you're good enough at the game to levy those criticisms.
Not playing your game for bandwagoning NPC's. Just not gonna, is all! I don't do things just because a bunch of normalhomosexuals do them. My favorite composer is Mozart. You know why? Because I'm also not a contrarion. I'm actually a guy who makes up his own mind about things. Wow, quite a concept. But keep sinking deeper into that armchair and bloviating about how I secretly want to be a grandmaster and play chess all the time. You know, even though I literally explained why I hate chess. I fully expect if we played chess you would cream me, and I don't care anymore than I would entering a banjo duel with Steve Martin. The game isn't worth my time or attention and it certainly wasn't worth the time and attention of Fischer, just like learning the banjo is. Meanwhile I can't say the same of the great Go masters who may as well have dedicated their lives to studying the cosmos itself. The Shogi guys fall more in line with the Chess grandmasters too, even though their game seems to have more going on.
It's irrelevant whether you want to be good at the game or not. The point is that you don't know enough about the game to be able to effectively criticize it. This is actually really obvious from the fact that Fischer's criticism of the game was completely different from yours.
You keep hiding behind Fischer because you know all this.
Fischer's problem, afaict, is that Chess doesn't reward creativity enough against rote memorization and look-ahead. My contention is that Go, and especially these completely obscure games that hardly even have book yet, do lend themselves to creative play. I literally don't have to play chess to see why this would be the case, and it comes down to things as simple as the size of the board, the lack of coldness and of course the total lack of coordination and vision of its "design" (evolution really).
Fischer's problem was the brutal amount of opening theory required to play at the very top level. This has nothing to do with castling or en passant and only ever affects ~50-100 players out of the millions playing chess all over the world.
And let's not forget that you didn't even understand what Fischer meant by prearrangement.
>And let's not forget that you didn't even understand what Fischer meant by prearrangement.
That's forgivable as the pieces are prearranged and Fischer came up with a variant of Chess where the pieces are not prearranged. I wasn't exactly going to conclude from this that prearrangement meant some sort of Soviet conspiracy theory, the man's apparent neuroses notwithstanding.
Chess isn't a creative game, it's an analytical game. After several moves it's very easy to get into a game that hasn't been played before, but it's not about creating new attacks, it's about reading the situation on the board.
Memorization can only get you so far. See Deutsch vs Carlsen 2017.
You want creative, try a creative game. How about some D&D?
>How about some D&D?
Absolutely moronic. I don't even know why you typed this, except to sabotage your own credibility in some self-destructive act. Obviously the kind of creativity Bach uses to generate invertible counterpoint in a fugue or a Go player uses to link up multiple seemingly dead groups (Cho Chikun iirc) is different than the kind of creativity Salvador Dali uses to paint melting clocks, or much less, a D&D player uses to say they are polkadotted assgnome. The kind of creativity good abstract games reward is the Bach kind obviously. By admitting "Chess isn't a creative game" do you realize you've basically given me everything I want? Concession accepted!
>Creativity
>D&D
D&D isn't theatre. There isn't an audience. You're given a situation and asked how you interact with it. You can ask questions, pick things up, move them around as if it's a physical space and a real object because no matter what there is a rule for it. If you find a dungeon that's trapped you can take a ten foot pole and knock every stone before you step on it, as is tradition. Or you can buy a herd of sheep and funnel them into the entrance til they've set off all the traps. Anything that should work, works.
Musical composition is an act of creation; reading the possible positions on the board, go or chess, is analytical. It's different skillsets.
Clearly we're talking about abstract games here, so I don't even know why you brought this up. I see now that you are talking about the "4 types of problem solving" and using "creative" in a much more rigid way, as one of the types that is opposed to analytical. But if both Go and Chess fall under "analytical" then this is a total red-herring. So thanks for wasting everyone's time. The question is whether one game rewards unexpected play more.
>abstract problem solving is not creativity because have not created a tangible thing
Actual autism.
He randomly started using the categories in the types of problem solving where "analytical" and "creative" are distinct categories. Its irrelevant because he is saying all abstracts are analytical anyway.
>waste their time on this poojeet garbage game
>I don't literally think chess is a bad game.
>one of the best Chess players who ever lived said Chess sucked and was all about memorization and "pre-arrangement"
>He built his entire life around Chess. You think he was just going to give up and admit its a fundamentally shit game (which it is)? Sure thing, pal...
My god I can't even imagine how fragile your ego most be, you are willing to constantly contradict yourself, lie and do all sort of mental gymnastics just to avoid admiting you are wrong on an anonymous forum it's surreal
One day you won't be able to lie to yourself anymore and the realisation of how stupid you truly are will destroy you
You mean you've never completely shit on something you merely find to be overrated, just to let people know where you stand and to, admittedly in all futility, counteract its overblown reputation? You've also never used extreme language without much consideration? The difference between me and you is if I showed you a gif of some obscure game, you'd just say "wtf is this lol!" Instead of learning the rules and trying to appreciate the mechanics and emergent properties. Whereas I have the maturity to actually sit through your gif and try to appreciate what is going on, all on the presumptuous basis that I should give a shit about Chess in the first place.
this is the most moronic shit i've read all week
Cope and sneed
You admitted it was a bad analogy, not related to the situation you were describing.
Why did you call an insult "cope" in this context? I've seen you mess up harder words and contexts in this thread, but how do you mess up that?
It wasn't an analogy though, it was an explanation of conditional probability. The fact that it ivolved politics is irrelevant, that's just what I happened to think of.
lol.
Why not complain about people playing games vs contributing to society at this point. You could argue any game is "an abomination" or at the very least a waste of time versus doing something actually productive.
I mean I could argue that all these board games are inferior to games that require not only brainpower, but reflexes as well, or any combination of arbitrary traits you incels deem ignorable.
Indeed you could. I wouldn't even hold a grudge against you over it.
>you filter for qualities that make a good gymnast
>you then filter for being black non-binary w/e and this reduces the pool of qualified candidates
Okay I'm with you so far the analogy is fine
>chess has new moves added to it
>this is like filtering for being gay because ????
You haven't proven how new moves are a filter and you haven't explained how new moves are a bad filter. The analogy isn't connected to chess.
The guy who wrote that post and most of the posts here doesn't think it's an analogy because he's too stupid to know what an analogy is. I think he thinks these games have a creative quality because he doesn't understand how the games work even at even a mid level, and he doesn't know how to make art or music. They're all magic to him, a mysterious quality which one might have more or less of.
Someone showed him the Opera game and he couldn't tell by looking at it if it was high level chess or not. It isn't a chess player running this thread, it's some kind of schizophrenic.
It's the Shogi/Go spammer who's behind the chess-is-dead shit.
Why did you homosexuals let the Shogi containment thread die?
Because we are not Shogi spammers.
>Why did you homosexuals let the Shogi containment thread die?
what is with your obsession with a non-existent shogi thread? do you genuinely have autism or something?
The shogihomosexual that shits up the chessthread refused to post in it out of spite cause he's a stubborn moron
Chess is dead. It was killed when simply playing unusually well gets you accused of cheating with no further evidence ever presented.
Shogi thread is alive and bumped. Visitors welcome!
Jesus said they wouldn't believe if the rich man even returned from the dead to warn them of hell. Fischer was that man, and you rejected his testimony. Enjoy the aesthetic hellscape that is chess.
See
hive and santorini (with god powers) are unironically better than chess
the reason chess players dismiss other abstracts is because they wouldn't be good at them, and they'd be irrelevant at the one thing in life they're good at (at least until you compare them against engines, which chew them up and spit them out running on a cell phone processor)
>hive and santorini (with god powers) are unironically better than chess
total nonsense contrarian take
>they wouldn't be good at them
it's much easier to be good at hive than chess, because there's no competition
>it's much easier to be good at hive than chess, because there's no competition
What happened to the "le book moves only matter for competitive play" cope?
All good moves in chess are "book moves".
Which is exactly the problem. Though I won't defend babby shit like Hive and Santorini. If you want a real game, try Michael Zapala's Tumbleweed or Luis Bolanõs Mures' and Michael Admundsen's Lifeline.
>every game comes with a Designer's Name
Insufferable
Being so obscure that no one has developed strategies and opening theory yet doesn't actually make a game good. If the game ever becomes successful this is a temporary situation anyway. Hive is already developing opening theory.
The "board game community" hates chess because they have a culture of enforced mediocrity. They have never been good at anything and they keep reassuring each other that It's Okay. They have to switch to a new game every few plays because someone figures out a strategy and then it's no longer fair. They hate chess and love hive and santorini and games with designer names because they think being bad at hive is more culturally acceptable. (Even though in reality no one cares if you're bad at chess, either.)
Black person, there is already a strategy guide AND a book of puzzles for Tumbleweed. Not to mention a deep-learning AI.
>there's a strategy guide for chess
>there's a strategy guide for go
sounds laughable
>there's a strategy guide for tumbleweed
sounds impressive because it's a shit game for contrarian hipsters
>obscure bad
Don't you see this as kind of a self-perpetuating problem, my hylic "friend"?
Less armchair psychology more med-takey
Who said anything about book moves?
>the reason chess players dismiss other abstracts is because they wouldn't be good at them
lmao it's literally the opposite, I've been extremely strong (and in one case even worldclass) at many card and strategy games but in chess I'm strongish but nothing special despite putting more effort in it than all the other games
Keep being small fish in a microscopic pond if it makes you happy but stop spouting moronic shit like this to cope about it
>board game: west
>:^(
>board game: japan
>:^O
Meant for
The fact that Japan has the 2 best established abstract games is entirely a coincidence. Obscure games made with the scientific method mog all these except possibly Go.
>2 best
>1. Shogi
>2. ??????
Go, you dumb fricker
>BUT IT WAS INVENTED IN CHINA
okay so the "thing Japan" meme was irrelevant all along then. Cool.
And Go is number 1. Its not even close!
You're talking to someone else, I was just legit curious
The only other game that came to mind was Riichi Mahjong
I play demon mahjong so I am set. AI and machines have no flow
>Chess
>Release core set
>600 years later and still no army books or 2nd wave
Dead game
A minimal ruleset will generally tend to produce more robust games but its by no means a sufficient condition. You're inability to factor in basic logical concepts like necessary vs sufficient conditions, prompts me to wish you the best of luck in cracking 1700 elo (you won't EVER). Building a case against your shitty game does not count as "moving goalposts". Moving goalposts isn't even the same as gish galloping (what your actually accusing me of). Moving the goalposts is when you argue an entirely new premise while acting as though its the one currently being debated, or intrinsically proceeds from it. I haven't even had the opportunity to move the goalposts should I want to, because the level of discourse has been entirely surface level coping malding and seething so far. And my "racism" has been casual, while that piece of crap was actually trying to use "post hand" and white supremacy as an argument. Meanwhile the moron I replied t9 with my "meme reply" was literally arguing that you can fix the game by not giving players enough time to deliberate. I merely pointed out that this turns Chess into a pretentious version of a party game where you name things that aren't Jackie Chan. Honestly your lack of any ability to think critically tells me you're probably hovering around 1500 elo on Lichess with no prospects for advancement. If not, you're a savant who still has absolutely NOTHING to contribute to a debate on any matter (y'know because of this fundamental inability to abstract or think in logical categories) Just shut your fricking pie-hole, keep pushing your action-figures around, oh and
>;)
GB2R, you insufferable fricker! Talk about projection with that "unholy trinity". Lol. Lmao even. Enjoy wasting your time on a game made by morons and not even ever getting gud at it because you're just slow!
>like necessary vs sufficient conditions, prompts me to wish you the best of luck in cracking 1700 elo (you won't EVER).
1700 lichess =/= 1700 elo, shitter.
None of them have value, a computer can play it better. You're basically a dog performing tricks for a biscuit if you care these days.
Now that's stupid. But I agree, we should stop destroying games by having machines, that derive no pleasure from them, play hundreds of thousands of matches and wring out potentially centuries of human theory! Players, whether human or machine, have a fundamentally parasitic relationship to the games they play because ultimately playing a game is about figuring out which branches can be pruned from a given game tree until you, theoretically, have the best possible game. All it does when machines play, is allow a bunch of accelerationist nerds to jerk off over "muh singularity". Games are for people. Simple as. Okay people say AI has "revolutionized Go theory" or whatever but the fact remains, we are moving closer to wringing Go out. But that's just competetive play for the most part. For most players it won't make a difference what computers are doing, especially if they never study it. I'm just saying there is a lot less to wring out in the case of chess to begin with, making it the inferior abstract.
AI has only made the game of chess better. The top level opening variety is maybe the richest it has ever been.
How good are you at go anyway?
Not that good (don't even know my exact rating aside from on iggamecenter). But good enough to appreciate what's going on in high-level games, which is all I really need to see the greatness of Go.
Poker is fun (IRL). Chess is boring.
This thread is filled with anti-white rat-eating ching chong nip non gongs.
Oh you're back. Tell me what exactly is so goddamn white about the game formerly known as SHATranj and SHATuranga? At least Japanese have the honorary aryan meme going for them. Chess was literally conceived by brownoids.
>Jeet game is white
Stratego moggs go, chess, and shogi.
It's objectively superior.
Hans is a jerk
I think chess is pretty good and fun but for it's stated purpose of being a wargame it isn't very good.
Is there a traditional board game that works better as a representation of war/military tactics
That Italian queen I can't remember her name (who modded the queen and made her stronk and independent (at least if you play the Scandinavian) at least turned it into a decent precursor to modern FPS:s though.
>Is there a traditional board game that works better as a representation of war/military tactics
Stratego
Stratego is not traditional...
Yes it is.
i always saw dota 2 as the superior form of chess, because your understanding is based on you experience and understanding of the game, its not all about memory.
when fischer said "pre-arrangement" he was referring to tournament players making easy draws for the sake of standings
none of what fischer talked about is relevant to me slapping around some BRs in the 1600s chess.com pool
cringe
I am tired of all the fighting
Why not just enjoy all these strategy games?
Yes I know some people were annoyed by that one anon posting about Shogi in the chess general, but all the hate is unwarranted
I love chess but Go is a lot of fun too. I wish we could all appreciate these different games and not be so mean to each other
Why do you care?
>East vs West Thread
I bet Goku could beat him
Must be sad living vicariously through others
Who are you quoting?
What's a game that rewards flexible thinking but isn't as stuffy and rigid as chess?
Stratego
It started in1946. That's old enough bro.
Literally any of the other games that have been mentioned itt
Why not just learn a real game like Mahjong
What's the fastest lowest effort way to be good enough at chess to beat dumb blowhards, don't care if I lose 99% of the time to people that actually like chess
>What's the fastest lowest effort way to be good enough at chess to beat dumb blowhards,
Cheat
Just learn opening principles and the basic tactics, also practice with some puzzles too. Doing this alone should easily get you to about 1000 rating on chess.com, which is more than enough to beat pretty much any casual player in the world.
Why would that be relevant? OP said he never plays chess and sucks at it. But he's an expert because he designs games that aren't chess lol!
No, I don't think you need to be a game designer to figure out that the unwieldy process by which chess came about resulting in the best abstract game of all time would be a staggering coincidence.
If you're looking for precise design in abstract games I'd reccomend games designed by mathmetician John Nash. Hex, a stone placement game on a hex grid in which during perfect play the person who goes first always wins. I think he was a bit obsessed with a "perfect game." Something to do with his schizophrenia.
His other game, "Frick Your Buddy," is an economic open bidding game in which you make deals and agreements and are under no obligation to follow them. To get ahead you have to form deals and partnerships. To win you have to betray them. He was an interesting guy.
The rules of go, in themselves, really are better designed and more aesthetically satisfying than the rules of chess.
Go fans seem to believe that this somehow translates into better gameplay. It doesn't. There's absolutely no reason why it would.
Chess is not stuffy and rigid. Go on lichess.org and play and if you are familiar with any theory you'll immediately see that everyone just ignores it, plays unreasonable, uneducated caveman bullshit, then beats you anyway because they are good at tactics. For us mere mortals who weren't studying chess full time since the age of 5 chess will never be anything more than that, although theory can be fun to autize about.
everyone gets confused on this, rigidity is a problem but it's not the opening that's rigid, it's the ending
>just ignores it, plays unreasonable, uneducated caveman bullshit, then beats you anyway because they are good at tactics
Amateur chess players seem pretty based.
Nash games are kino, especially Hex which I've always argued as the game most beyond reproach (that hardly means its the best however) but Conway's games are garbage and I don't think the study of mathematics does much to help an abstract game designer. It would probably be more suited for games with complex systems and probability. Abstracts are generally too simple to apply sophisticated mathenatical ideas to them iyam.
As a gogay my main problem with Hex is aesthetic. The stretched out board just looks silly.
There are other equally organic connection games for hex hex, like Yodd (yes its essentially a connection game) or Cross by Cameron Browne. But I have to say, I find this complaint pretty ridiculous especially because if you play Hex on a Go board where only NW-SE diagonal connections count its isomorphic to the 19x19 Hex board. Not saying that's the best way to play, just that nothing is "stretched out" except in a purely visual sense.
He literally said his problem was "aesthetic"
Well there are gameplay aesthetics too and I'm just pointing out the board is fundamentally square.
if he was so smart why did hey die somewhere remote and left all his money to a golddigger that convinced him she totally had his child ?
Fun fact, intelligence is only correlated with income below the middle class, is less strongly correlated with higher income, and has frickall to do with actual upper middle class and above.
ooh now do its relationship to happiness and chance of successful sexual reproduction
I want you to do
In other words double digit IQ's don't have income and nobody pays anyone to sit around being smart.
Because it makes them feel smart and sophisticated to play chess
When in reality nobody gives a frick
Also playing some bias as all hell AI that makes illegal moves or won't let you make legal ones isn't playing anyway
Honestly this is why I could never get into chess. My buddy got into chess club, tried to get me interested, right up until he thumped a fricking textbook on the table and insisted I study
He's only considered good because of the amount of times he whined and cried to get the exact conditions he wanted.
And he cracked under the pressure too often, even before he went stark raving mad.
Why would the conditions matter? Its not like they had bluetooth anal beads back then...
Where did it all go wrong?
It's simple, anon. I like chess. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to play chess and you're more than welcome to play weeb chess instead.
>fawning over Shogi and Go
Kuso nobleman get out of here. Try a game with REAL strategy, like Mahjong.
Chess is for playing with others; it's supposed to be an intellectually-stimulating social activity that lets you see the strategic style of your opponent. Competitive chess is going to devolve into memorization and pre-arrangement because competitive play is about exploiting the game to its fullest and ignores the social aspect.
It's no different from how, if D&D was made competitive, it would just be about making broken character builds and abusing mechanics.
I was winning games against others down here in the beginner rankings by keeping my pieces protected and running tactics as best as I know how and it was all good.
Then I decided to check out how openings work. I followed these rules to the letter.
>open with a center pawn
>knights before bishops before rooks before queen
>don't move the same piece twice
>don't make too many pawn moves
>control the center
>castle early
>clear the back rank and connect the rooks
And now I get FRICKING DESTROYED every tiem.
at some point, when you play enough of a game, any game becomes about "memorization" and "common gameplay patterns"
Do GMs tend to have drastic fall offs in skill level at a certain age?
I assume it has something to do with tournament schedules. I do magic tournaments and 12 hours of straight concentration and focus is taxing. Then there's travel, about 40+ hours a week of practice and study and so on for a season. Endurance matters.
Because at my level none of that nerd shit matters.