Despite this evident advantage, chess remains more popular than checkers. That is because the elites want to prevent this oligarchic society from changing. And the best way to do that is by controlling our free time.
Chess vs checkers
Sort:
Jan 4, 2017
0
#3
Is it a good thing to "promote equality?" Really? You sure about that?
Chess is more popular because checkers is dull in comparison. Checkers is a fine game but it doesn't have the magic of chess. The knight is amazing in injecting magic into the game, and few things are more pleasant in life than administering checkmate.
Chess is more popular because checkers is dull in comparison. Checkers is a fine game but it doesn't have the magic of chess. The knight is amazing in injecting magic into the game, and few things are more pleasant in life than administering checkmate.
Jan 4, 2017
0
#5
This is why critical theory / cultural studies kind of guys should never be in charge of things
Jan 4, 2017
0
#6
njmonson wrote:
I don't understand why this post was even written. It benefits no one to say that you like checkers more than chess simply because the chess pieces are rather oligarchical. Why do these two games need to represent any sort of social system at all? I can't think of anyone who would ever be offended by the rules of chess. No one says "I won't play chess until every piece can become a king". There are no social injustices in the game of chess. Chess is just a game and should not be criticized as anything more than that. The preference of checkers over chess should be based solely on your enjoyment of the game and not because the oligarchical nature of the pieces offends you. I don't understand why anyone would feel personally victimized by chess pieces. This post sounds like you are trying to rally a protest against chess and get the rules changed so that every piece can become "equal". The pieces aren't people and you shouldn't feel sympathy for a bishop because it can't become a king. If the pieces could all become another piece the game would not be enjoyable. Saying you don't like chess because of its oligarchy is like saying you don't like the game Life because there's only one doctor card in the game and sometimes you can land on a square saying you got into a car accident. Without these imbalances, there are no games. Every game has some sort of inequality. If don't like chess because of the inequality, why do you like checkers? You can't both move at the same time, so therefore whoever moves first has an advantage. Pick your favorite games based on how much you enjoy them.
He was joking.
Paragraphs, please.
kingofshedinjas wrote:
in this thread the overwhelming superiority checkers has over chess will be clear
Trolla la la la
kingofshedinjas wrote:
Despite this evident advantage, chess remains more popular than checkers. That is because the elites want to prevent this oligarchic society from changing. And the best way to do that is by controlling our free time.
Society may well be designed for the elites, but that has nothing to do with chess and checkers.
Jan 5, 2017
0
#10
I am a dominant checker player at 9 but I abandon checker as it lacks beauty, challenge and mystery.
Jan 5, 2017
0
#11
Chess is about position. A minor piece becomes powerful in the right square at the right time. A rook or a queen is powerless in the wrong square.
If you like this kind of analysis, some pieces are "born" low and some are "born" high but if they work smart and as part of a team any piece or pawn can win the game.
If you like this kind of analysis, some pieces are "born" low and some are "born" high but if they work smart and as part of a team any piece or pawn can win the game.
Jan 5, 2017
0
#12
njmonson wrote:
I don't understand why this post was even written. It benefits no one to say that you like checkers more than chess simply because the chess pieces are rather oligarchical. Why do these two games need to represent any sort of social system at all? I can't think of anyone who would ever be offended by the rules of chess. No one says "I won't play chess until every piece can become a king". There are no social injustices in the game of chess. Chess is just a game and should not be criticized as anything more than that. The preference of checkers over chess should be based solely on your enjoyment of the game and not because the oligarchical nature of the pieces offends you. I don't understand why anyone would feel personally victimized by chess pieces. This post sounds like you are trying to rally a protest against chess and get the rules changed so that every piece can become "equal". The pieces aren't people and you shouldn't feel sympathy for a bishop because it can't become a king. If the pieces could all become another piece the game would not be enjoyable. Saying you don't like chess because of its oligarchy is like saying you don't like the game Life because there's only one doctor card in the game and sometimes you can land on a square saying you got into a car accident. Without these imbalances, there are no games. Every game has some sort of inequality. If don't like chess because of the inequality, why do you like checkers? You can't both move at the same time, so therefore whoever moves first has an advantage. Pick your favorite games based on how much you enjoy them.
Games, culture, art...all of them might seem harmless, but in fact they are part of the superstructure that exists in order to alienate us, to make us think that society cannot be changed for the better. Most people are unaware of it, that is why this thread was made, to unveil the truth.
Jan 5, 2017
0
#13
Checkers is actually a pretty deep game. I mean it's deep enough to enthrall a man like vasily Ivanchuck.. that alone tells you there is a lot to it .. how idealistic it would be though if everyone in life started off equal as they do in checkers.. maybe unrealistic
There is a pic of David Bronstein and Boris Vainstein playing checkers with chess pieces while drinking cognac served on a trophy. Cool as hell.
lutak22 wrote:
Checkers is actually a pretty deep game. I mean it's deep enough to enthrall a man like vasily Ivanchuck.. that alone tells you there is a lot to it .. how idealistic it would be though if everyone in life started off equal as they do in checkers.. maybe unrealistic
Some checkers openings(yes, they have names for openings just like in chess):
http://www.usacheckers.com/openingnames.php
But you shouldn't forget we are viewing the game as players and not as the pieces. In chess we play as a welcoming leader that accepts diversity and strives to make every single piece live up to their full potential. It's also a statement for feminism, as the queen is a strong, independent woman that can overthrow a king with ease. You're a tolerant leader, you have a black and a white bishop and all your pawns are allowed to change their gender if they see fit. You say it's wrong that the pieces have different values, but actually that represents how we all have our own values, which may be different from others but nonetheless just as important.
Then there's checkers, which essentially represents all evil in capitalism. You play as a boss who leads a mass of people, you view every piece as the same, replacable, nearly worthless projectiles which you simply launch forward to die, brainwashing them to believe there is only a single goal in life(promoting). A goal that is fabricated by the manipulative players for their own gain.
So when you really think about it, you come to realize there is no darn philosophy behind the games and the creators where just bored and wanted to play a game in which they could see the life suck out of their opponents eyes as they got brutally destroyed. :)
Then there's checkers, which essentially represents all evil in capitalism. You play as a boss who leads a mass of people, you view every piece as the same, replacable, nearly worthless projectiles which you simply launch forward to die, brainwashing them to believe there is only a single goal in life(promoting). A goal that is fabricated by the manipulative players for their own gain.
So when you really think about it, you come to realize there is no darn philosophy behind the games and the creators where just bored and wanted to play a game in which they could see the life suck out of their opponents eyes as they got brutally destroyed. :)
Nino_98 wrote:
Then there's checkers, which essentially represents all evil in capitalism. You play as a boss who leads a mass of people, you view every piece as the same, replacable, nearly worthless projectiles which you simply launch forward to die, brainwashing them to believe there is only a single goal in life(promoting). A goal that is fabricated by the manipulative players for their own gain.
Then there's checkers, which essentially represents all evil in capitalism. You play as a boss who leads a mass of people, you view every piece as the same, replacable, nearly worthless projectiles which you simply launch forward to die, brainwashing them to believe there is only a single goal in life(promoting). A goal that is fabricated by the manipulative players for their own gain.
Genius!
If you think about it, they are very different games.1 simple example is that chess is a 64 square game, while checkers is actually a 32 square game
I am aware this is a chess website and people here might be prejudiced against checkers. There has never been an objective and serious discussion about that game here, but in this thread the overwhelming superiority checkers has over chess will be clear even for the skepticals.
Checkers promotes equality, whereas chess does exactly the opposite. It is not something obvious, but as you get better at both games you will end up understanding it. In chess, there are different types of pieces which move in different ways. But the worst part is: most pieces cannot change that. They are stuck being knights, bishops, kings, rooks or queens...Only pawns can ascend socially. And even in that case, they can never become kings. We have an oligarchy with little social mobility.
And? It is just a game, isn't it? Well, not really. Chess is part of the superstructure that tries to convince us that an oligarchic society is fair. But, what about checkers? Every piece is the same at the start of the game. Via making a great effort, every piece can become more powerful. Meritocracy at its best.