So let's settle this once and for all : Is chess the best boardgame ever made?

You do realize that AlphaGo is undefeated by any human, and has beaten WC Go players, right?

>Best Boardgame
>not Monopoly or Risk

its like you dont live off the rage of others user

*传送后面你*

>Monopoly
>Risk
You are like little baby. Everyone knows the greatest board game ever is the Campaign for North Africa.

was referring to the more likely games you can convince people to actually play and then watch them get mad after a 4 hour game
theres legions of great board games that the average person wont play most of the time because they have never heard of them and its sad

I thought one of the top Go players managed to win one in four against it?

It's shit. 2e was superior in all respects.

It won four out of five against a human in 2016, and three out of three (albeit just barely in one match, where technically I think it only won by half a point when it needed 4 for it to count by Chinese Go rules) against a human in 2017 (who retired rather than play to completion, and it was rated as far more intelligent/powerful than the 2016 version), after which it was retired.

I do actually like Chess 2 a lot more, yeah. But this ain't the thread about that.

This is the best boardgame of all time.

It's funny that I'm actually rewatching my way through Trek, currently on TNG S3. Kirk still best Captaindo.

But uh, I read the rules for that once, it seems like a bunch of horseshit.

>basically impossible to find someone who doesn't know about chess without visiting deep Africa or the Antarctic.

If I'm not mistaken, just about everyone in Antarctica are scientists and researchers who very likely know about chess. Other than that little nit-pick, I agree with you whole-heartedly

Chess was defeated by brute force. Go required more creative thinking. It is impossible to beat Go with brute force.

He's not saying AlphaGo doesn't work. He's pointing out how much longer it took computers to beat humans at go than at chess.

Mousetrap, you plebs

>not being aware that Campaign for North Africa is part of series, and there's a master book for running them together to simulate the whole war

A friend of mine somehow managed to accrue 10 nerds to play 5 simultaneous matches of wargame, simulating a massive scale engagement. It was a shitshow, but a fun shitshow. Definitely more fun than chess.

Actually, there's a question. How come all modern "true" wargames, at least ones that are on the typical scale you'd expect one to be, are all WW2? WW2 is a cool setting and has many interesting battles to be sure, but how come there ain't equally big and complicated ones about modern warfare, or wars on alien planets, or shit like that?

>watch them get mad after a 4 hour game
so monopoly?

Explicitly, yes.

A bitch to set up. Rumble in the Jungle is best game hands down

And how much of that has to do with the considerably higher prominence Chess has over Go? How much money and man-hours have been put into making invincible chess AIs as opposed to invincible Go AIs?

Absolute best, you knaves.
All skill, no RNG to rely upon if you're a scrub.

It's good but too basic to keep my interest.

anything is beatable with brute force if you have enough of it. also it's not quite accurate to describe deep blue as 'brute force', iirc it was basically minimax with a very sophisticated position value heuristic.

Rumble poster here, can confirm this is the best game for someone who has no friends to play with

I just realised I actually never played it with any of my friends, we played other stuff. Did play it some with cousins though, somehow.

some of it, but is right in that it took a very different approach (basically fancy machine learning algos) to win at go, whereas chess was winnable basically by aggressively tuning basic tic-tac-toe algorithms. Personally I like chess and couldn't give less of a shit about go, the 'computer can win at it' only matters if you consider doing something a computer could do to be beneath you. Computers can't play soccer for shit so I guess that means it's even better than go?

>Chess computers use brute force programming
No
The computing power needed to create brute force chess programs in the way that you're thinking they work doesn't exist and won't for hundreds of years
Chess computers just have every single chess maneuver in recorded history saved, recognizes when an opponent is using one of these, and plays what beat it in its history

It's actually the same process they used in the program to win at Go, except there was actually money in creating a Chess computer and they had about 50 times as much data to feed it

I don't know, but it's definitely one of the most boring ever created.

yes

There's rules? I thought it was just a cool SF prop.

The best one is chess with those rules:
everyone can capture the pawn enpassant by doing a capture move to the place the pawn would be if he moved one square isntead of two.

You can't put yourself in check/mate unless you can only do this type of move (you verify what the enemy can do at next turn [to check for mate/check] assuming a alternate variant where check and mate doesnt exist, to avoid infinite recursion).

What is 40k?