Faux Review of Chess

This is a bit of interesting satire:

Is Chess a Two Player Solitaire Game?

"Many people complain than chess is kind of a boring two player solitaire game. To them chess is basically a race game with a simple auction mechanism for key spaces on the board. The general consensus is that chess has appeal to players who like economic efficiency games but has little appeal to player who prefer a lot of player interaction.

After playing chess several times, I have come to a different conclusion. I find that chess does indeed have enough player interaction to keep my interest up and is indeed conflictogenous (to borrow a great new word from a recent "power grid" review.) But I am getting ahead of myself by giving my conclusion first."

Personally, I think the humor misses the mark a bit because the reviewer describes Chess as a racing game where the winner is the first person to get a piece to the other side of the board.  Huh?  The humor in satire is found by sticking to the facts but adding a clever twist or interpretation to them...not by inventing your own facts to suit the purposes of the satire. 

Despite this unfortunate flaw, I do believe this part of the satirical article is a clever look at the Royal Game:

"7. Bidding for the scarce key squares:

...

Some modern eurogames would have had an auction mechanism but that would slow down the game and you would need to introduce more components (some type of tokens). The natural tendency would be to say that the first player to reach a square gets it and the other player goes around (Like in Ticket to Ride). In chess the brilliant solution is that the most recent player to reach a square gets to have that square (at least until the opponent brings another piece there and takes it back).

In a sense it is a geographic auction. When a piece reaches a square it is a bid. The most recent bid wins the use of the square in making its path to the finish line. Simply Brilliant! It is not an intuitive design mechanic but it is simple, elegant, fast, and it transforms the race game from being mundane to being truly challenging.

The most recent piece to reach a square gets control of the square.(There is a restriction is that you cannot outbid one of your own pieces). The previous occupant of the square is removed from the game. This hurts if that piece had advanced a lot. The strategy is not to advance too fast since losing a piece means that you have masted moves in the race (In chess you have to always keep your mind on the overall objective of winning the race)

Sometimes there are bidding wars for a particularly desirable square that both players want in their path to the finish line. Player A bids on the square by moving a piece there, then player B bids by moving a piece there, then player A bids on the square by moving a second of his pieces there, etc. Experienced players recognize when there is a bidding war and can calculate the eventual winner of the bidding war. Therefore the actual bidding war will often not occur since the loser of the bid will often refrain from bidding. We noticed right from the first game that the first player to bid on a square is at a disadvantage because he will lose his piece when the other player bids. This leads to caution in the race. You must not advance too fast.

Also if you position your pieces to bid heavily on one square then the other player will be able to outbid you for the other squares. So you must constantly try to evaluate the relative value of the various squares on the board." 

 I never considered Chess in an economic light before.  Maybe he has a point?

You can view it as a race game if you don't view the finish line as the other end of the board, but rather the square of the oppoent's king. So it's a race game, where each side has the ability to move the finish line of the other side.

Ahh, I think I got the point he was trying to make now.  Thanks for explaining that. 

Chess in a nutshell is  not merely a race but more of a struggle. The law of the jungle always apply, survival of the fittest and only the strong wins. Actually strong good players are ALWAYS lucky too.

I have always been facinated of Chess lore the likes of which a Morphy could play simultaneous exhibition games blindfolded. The beauty an artistry of a Capablanca move or a daring Tal sacrifice always gives me the chills.

True one must be prudent in his moves,however if all things were equal from the get go all games would end in boring draws would they? But that is not so for a players entire personality is summoned with each moves he takes.

There are bad days a strong rated player loses to an unheralded unknown. However there are more good days when a stronger adept player always wins against a weaker opponent.

The loser can thus also win by looking into how he was crush.

We all like to see our err "best" games played often we play them over and over again. But what about the lost ones? There are more important data to see on the games you blundered away.

This is the irony in Chess in the end everybody WINS!

No, if Chess is merely a race to control squares on a board, that would relegate the game literally and practically to blitz.The faster analyzer will always prevail even if what he moves is not always the soundest choice.

JMHO