Give me one reason why you're not an obsessive chess player

Story is shit, balance is all over the place, SJW "queen is most powerful" garbage, and racist bullshit like the white pieces go first.

Not enough variables, too predictable.

Someone do me a favour and post the tiniest-brained of tiny-brain Wojaks and that will sum up what I'm working with here in regards to chess.

The game is completely pointless. It's all about memorising what moves to make and when. It's a game you can get better at without ever playing once.

There's no "perfect" game of chess, but we've gotten as near as we can to it. Chess is for extremely left-brained, logical people who've memorized every move and counter move possible.

People should just stop playing this stupid game, so we can put it in a museum and see how far we've come in game development.

I don't have autism

I am an obsessive chess player, I'm just not any good

Computers now will always beat humans at it which makes the entire exercise a bit pointless.

I'd rather play something like magic the gathering or warhammer 40k which takes human skill as computers haven't mastered them yet.

I find chess to be a pretty average game. I appreciate the capacity for strategic moves, but have little love for how dry and mechanical they are. Still an excellent game I'll never turn down if asked to play.

It's not all that fun. There's the potential for high level play but to what end? I'm competent but not the best. I can beat everyone but my brother and he can't beat anyone great at it. It's the same problem the RTS genre has in videogames. You have people you're going to crush, you have people who are going to crush you, and there's a huge power gap you have to overcome inbetween where you're not really going to have close games all that often.

>Give me one reason why you're not an obsessive chess player.
I don't like chess.

If I ever decide to sink time into a game like chess, it will not be chess.
Gonna be GO or shogi

Don't own a chessboard.

>computers haven't mastered fucking 40k
>Target Prioritizing: The Game

kek

>Deterministic (no randomization of attacks in game, taking a piece always results in its removal, castling always results in the same moves, etc.)
>Not based on a historical conflict (just some abstract units with abstract movement types allotted to them)
>Less about tactics, more about learning 'plays' and openings.
>No possibility for asymmetrical warfare, always roughly balanced (ignoring white always moving first)
>Don't get to write your own army list (always have to play with the same force composed of the same units)
>Too linear (limited to staying in the squares)
>No terrain (an incredibly important aspect of warfare)
>No ranged weapons
>No for of war
>No facings or flanks (units are omni-directional and do not have a "front")

I mean I like chess, I have played it a lot since I was a kid, but I need more from my tabletop games than the pure gameplay of chess. I need a setting, ideally based in a real historical conflict. I need to be able to make choices about my army composition and deployment, and to be able to take advantage of facings and flanks - angles. I also like more fluid games where you measure ranges with a tape-measure rather than having to stick to squares or hexes.
I also like some randomness in a game. Completely deterministic games often make things far too competitive - I prefer something more chilled where both players can have a good time, move some units around, try to make the right decisions, even if things don't always work out or crazy shit happens.

Perfect information games are boring, I tend to leave those for the AI.

because I didn't seriously play early enough in my development for neuroplasticity to structure my brain like a chess master's.

I like the idea of chess; a symmetrical game where being better is the only way to win, but I'm not willing to commit myself to it enough to actually get anywhere. Whenever I play online I end up falling for cheap tricks and losing pieces because I'm just not paying enough attention.

Because 10 February 1996 happened.

I am. To the point where it upsets me a great deal if I make a move that I realize is a bad one. It doesn't even matter whether I win or lose, playing less than what I consider "proper for my ability" can send me into a tail spiral for days.

Stay away from chess. It's worse than crack.

i prefer checkers

I'm not a chess player, or any variation on that.

I am a player, but I think doing anything obsessively can't be too good for you.

I'm not good at forward thinking - I can't plan a few moves ahead at all. And when a strategy doesn't work out, I tend to give up rather than being flexible.

Even beyond that, I didn't have much of an environment for playing chess. I had siblings and my dad taught it, but I was always outclassed, and anyone more my age to play with were the type to flip the board over when they lost.

Brainlet.

I suck at chess.

Autism.

I can't figure out what other people are thinking.

Because Go is better desu.

You don't need to. Play the board, not the other player.

i'm not prone to obsessive behavior

I am a dumb retard who can't into chess.

What a faggot.

not enough storyline
no metacurrency

Yeah, buddy? To easy?

I played competitively as a kid. The player experience usually goes as follows
>0-6 months - the game is fun, you have no idea whats habbening and how to form a long term strategy, you learn what 'gambit' is and try it in every game for no reason
>7-12 months - you slowly understand the meta game and actually begin making proactive steps towards victory instead of just waiting for your opponent to fuck up.
>13-18 months - that sweet time where most chess players begin studying advanced openings. Shit is like deciding on which spells to learn in an RPG game and feels fantastic.
>19-24 months - you try some local tournaments and get wrecked by some 8 year old autistic genius
>25-30 months - this is where most decicated players realise that they now can fully envision a board in the mind and play chess blind
>30+ - this is where most people hit their ceiling and either drop the game or visit tournaments for a while until the game of rote memorization makes them too depressed

I dont like chess

Put an alleged "grand master" in a blitz or bullet chess game they shut down like an autistic child.

I don't care that much about anything.
The moment I git gud at a game I just start playing something else since at that point it takes more effort for an equal amount of wins.
I don't need that in my spare time

The difference is that chess is actually fun

Because go is ten times the board game chess is.

I've actually played GMs. No, they don't.

I WANT KOMODO NEXT

It takes a lot of practice to be as good at it as you really are, and I do that with other games. I probably should play more.

I don't really have the time, I don't find it fun, I don't like interacting with the majority of people who do find it fun, it won't serve me or my lifestyle in any particularly worthwhile fashion.

I'd rather play vidya.

...

I'm not obsessive about anything.
I do like the game tho.

I'm kinda into Tak at the moment

Cuz chess is gay

Chess is obsolete now that Dominions exists.

Shogi is better

I can't throw away my money gambling on chess booster packs, or obsessively watch the chess piece market to see if my chess piece speculation has paid off.

I've always want to try, but I've spent the last few years playing Go, I don't want to divest my time spent studying a game.

I'll be more honest than a lot of people here and say it
>I'm dumb as fuck and can't into strategy games whatsoever

Any tips for a beginner in go?

Is there a word for that gap in all skill based games between only having understood the mechanical rules of a game and having reached the point where you understand or are continually learning the actual means by which the game is played?
Because that's why Chess isn't fun.
99 out of 100 people you will ever have the opportunity to play Chess against (outside of actual organized chess events) are in that gap; they understand how the pawns move and the knights move, but they don't have any of the requisite knowledge on how to actually use these pieces in a way to win the game.

The result is that literally every game of Chess is either you against a player who could not possibly checkmate you or avoid being stalemated by you, or you're playing against someone who has crossed that gap and there is an astronomically, geologically, microscopically insignificant atom of a chance that both of you are even within the same time-zone of similar skill levels you would need for either of you to have fun.

Fuck Chess

Yeah I like chess but the skill gaps are ridiculous. In like two weeks of playing a person can become invincible against normies and from then on you will basically never come across someone irl with the same skill level.

That's not true for most people. You may have the misfortune of being unusually skilled at it.

I think when he says 'Invincible against normies' he means that your mom or sister or anyone who only just knows the rules of Chess but hasn't dedicated any time at all into learning its strategies would be beaten 99% of the time by someone who has memorized even the most basic of beginner strategies.

same

>One town's very like another when your head's down over your pieces, brother.
>You're talking to a tourist whose every move's among the purest. I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine.
>Chess is the ultimate test of cerebral fitness. It grips me more than would a muddy old river or reclining Buddha. And thank God I'm only watching the game controlling it.
I don't see you guys rating the kind of mate I'm contemplating.
I'd let you watch, I would invite you, but the queens we use would not excite you.

>Give me one reason why you're not an obsessive chess player.
Obsessing over anything, let alone a game, is a poor life strategy.

>It's all about memorising what moves to make and when.
It's really not.
It can be reduced to such levels, like many other games can, but ultimately you are not playing against possible moves in response to yours, you are playing against your opponent.

>The game is completely pointless.
I find that playing sharpens my mind and helps hone my sense of strategy.
As opposed to other "pointless" games that don't.

You raise a lot of fair criticisms of the game, but they boil down to chess being more abstract than you'd prefer.
Which is fine.

>Completely deterministic games often make things far too competitive - I prefer something more chilled where both players can have a good time.
Just to let you know, chess can completely be played this way, too.
Party on.

Chess masters and novices look ahead the same number of moves. What distinguishes really good players is simply memorisation of board configurations.

Also, I agree that skill gaps are a pain.
But it's a simple matter to raise the challenge when playing with lesser skilled opponentsx Just play distracted or timed while your opponent is not, avoiding looking at the board while they play.
And playing against a superior opponent is always intense, although it can be tiresome when it takes hours to always lose.
I tend to just get careless once I get more frustrated than challenged, at which point losing is simply an end to the mental exercise.
No worries.
Then you challenge them to your best game.

>Chess masters and novices look ahead the same number of moves.
Citation Needed

Pretentious: the post.

Consider leaving your house, ever.

I just don't enjoy chess.

>It's a drag, it's a bore, it's really such a pity to be looking at the board, not looking at the city.
Whaddya mean? Ya seen one crowded, polluted, stinking town...

My grandfather was teaching me in elementary school. Grandma died. His attention wandered. Then Alzheimer's got him.

Never got into the game after that.

300 billion possible moves after the fourth go and youve sussed it?

Agreed , i play in the pub with anyone who wants to play and have a couple of pints- it's super comfy in winter

I can't get into the mindset of enjoying the journey instead of the end result. I've had this both with chess and fighting games, where the concept of me just always being trash compared to the top players really grinds me down after a while. It's not that I expect to be the top player of the world but being far below even the 50% mark frustrates me

>game with 0 skill
>game that its just about who has better memory

Because I SUCK at thinking ahead, therefore I'm bad at chess.

Fun fact, most video games that have separate tiers to matchmaking do not divide the, equally. The lowest tier of most games represents roughly 60-75% of all people who play it, with each higher tier representing a smaller and smaller minority of players. If you have made it to the third tier in any game with ranked matchmaking, you are better than 90% of all players globally.

>tfw you will never be alive in the prime of chess where every match was truly a test of strategic wit against the opponent
>tfw you will never create a line in chess that gets named after you and studied for decades after your death

>memory isn't a skill
Also good luck with your memorization when crazy shit like that starts to happen:
youtube.com/watch?v=SU7dQuPPQCA

watch videos and read books, also study the early game first because you can basically lose the game and show your opponent you have no clue in the first few placements

Combat resolution system is a shitty.