Played some chess but it just made me want to kill myself

>>51961561
Really bad time posting this since there's an active chess game on this board right now

Chess being boring isn't a new development

>>51961576
Oh

How about that, what are the odds

>>51961603
It's either rather low or rather high

>>51961583
I didn't say it was boring

>>51961561

Playing chess against someone who "actually" plays Chess is like the epitome of everything people complain about and hate on /tg/, be it netdecking, cheesing, min/maxing, munchkin, WAAC, etc.

You're not even playing the same game. You're trying to use the pieces with their unique movements to create tactics and piece together a strategy: they are simply responding to your moves with rote memorized textbook plans.

>>51961561
I've observed that if you just try to leave zero openings and move your pieces to maximize options and having more than two prepared noms against attackers, a lot of the people that try to predict your moves or memorize plays have a high chance of losing. Not to mention bishopfags think they're the shit and you can beat them into submission by "horsing" around like a madman.

MFW people call my plays aggro because I move pawns for defense instead of letting them go stale.

Chess currently seems to be more based on memory and training than intelligence. I consider myself average int tier.

>>51961623
That's true. I remember chess lost a lot of its magic to me when I learned that it's more about memorizing than thinking.
But I guess it's the same in almost any game. Becoming a pro always seemed like such a hassle to me. More like work than fun.

>>51961561
Being a master at chess is about memorizing everything, it's just what >>51961623 described it as.

If you want to feel like a true brainlet, then play Go. It's a game complex enough that even master players can't just memorize every move and insta-win against everyone, they just win cause they did outsmart you.

>>51961856
I guess that's also why in Go, unlike in chess, giving up is considered admirable. If you can clearly see there's no way to win, it's fine to walk away.

>>51961561
Like some other anon's said, there is a method to chess and a lot is about memorization. You already set yourself up for succes or failure with the first few opening moves. This is also why it's so easy to program chess computers who can defeat all but the best of the best of the best players: it's a game with a very finite number of possible moves. This is also why sometimes these chess computers take a very long time to make their own move: after you've made your move, they're calculating every possible move and outcome from that point onward and pick the optimal one.

Don't feel like a brainlet, remember that even Napoleon was defeated by a primitive chess computer (the Turk).

>>51962894
>even Napoleon was defeated by a primitive chess computer (the Turk).
The Turk wasn't a chess computer.

It was a man in a box.

File: Napoleon-et-fils[1].jpg (214KB, 663x498px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 663x498px

>>51962951
>mfw you're right
The fuck? That does explain why it smacked all the pieces of the board when Napoleon tried to make an illegal move.

>>51961623
>>51961775
>>51961856
never played chess right ?

Chess isn't that intelligent of a game, it's mostly rote memorization of openings and what to do about your opponent's opening.
To wit, we have moved beyond the point where humans can beat computers at chess. Not even silly supercomputers, at this point it's just advanced chess software that can run on a laptop that will thrash grandmasters.
And computers ain't smart.

>>51961623
>>51961709
>>51961775
>>51961856
>>51962894
>>51963294
While it's true that at a top level a lot of chess involves memorization, the people you're playing against will most likely be nowhere near that level.
"Oh well, my opponent just studied their openings more" is just a shitty excuse bad players give when they feel like giving up. After the first few moves there are too many variations to memorize anyway, you guys don't seem to realize you would have to be playing against one of the best in the world if they were simply using memorized moves to beat you (unless it's something like fool's mate; in that case you just need to play the game more than 3 times)

Some of the beset games I've had were against a guy who memorized a metric tonne of openings. I myself have never bothered since I just play casually - I only know the common ones like queen's gambit and sicilian defence. Every game would start with him getting the upper hand, since I responded through intuition mostly. Once we got past the openings every game would be intense, as I battled to try and regain the material or positioning I had lost. Those were some of the most fun games I've ever played.

The "computers know it all so it's not REALLY about intelligence" is a similar copout. Yeah computers can brute force it, so what? The enjoyment of the game comes from testing your skill against other people. Eventually computers will get to the point where they have solved Go, does that devalue the game?

tl;dr chess is fun for the people who like that sort of game, and definitely relies on intelligence, stop shitting on it because you don't want to put in the effort to learn it/don't like it

File: tumblr_inline_mgtttkMdQa1qfe5t2[1].png (13KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x301px

>>51963348
The point was that being bad at chess doesn't make you stupid. On a highly casual level chess still relies on skill over memorization [which explains why it's still a very popular casual game, unlike the many medieval boardgames that went extinct], but even some basic memorization of openings that put you in a good starting position will help your game a lot.

It's not a cop-out just because these things don't apply on the most casual of levels, chess really isn't that complex of a game.

>>51963368
Of course being bad at chess doesn't make you stupid.
But even at a high level it still relies on skill, with memorization of openings simply being a prerequisite. To say that memorization is all there is to the game outside "the most casual of levels" is plain wrong.
"but even some basic memorization of openings that put you in a good starting position will help your game a lot." - you realize you can do this for pretty much every game right? That's not a chess thing, that just how games work. Opening theory is important in any competitive game, be it Go or even RTS games.

And yes, chess isn't that complex... for a computer. However it's more than adequate for a human brain. If it wasn't then there would be a lot of top players of equal skill, none of whom would ever lose (or if they did, it would be from a forfeit very early, knowing they lost well before the game started properly)

>>51962976

Did you honestly believe they had computers capable of playing chess in 1770? Jesus Christ.

>>51963760
Considering the Pascaline came about a century earlier and the Jacquard Loom not much later, it didn't seem beyond the realm of the plausible to an idiot like me.