Chess is the best board game for many reasons, for instance, you can prove so many people wrong with it
Do you think chess is the best board game? Or do you play chess just because it's popular?
Sort:
For many years I have been interested in board wargaming. But in recent years I have become increasingly disappointed in that hobby. Board wargames are too complex and too expensive, and there are too many designers out there who are just not very talented.
Chess is a game with infinite depth. It's a game I will continue to play for the rest of my life.
Dec 30, 2017
0
#4
I started playing chess when it definitely was not "popular" in the U.S.--"Fischer Fever" was still well in the future. I have enjoyed chess all my life, not least admiring the classic games of the past. I don't think I would be so satisfied long-term having played Monopoly, Life, Risk, or more modern role-playing games, though they are all fun to play. When a game has a history of centuries, with generations of leading players and theoreticians, and a long evolution, that is something to be part of, even in a small way.
In my opinion, which is indeed only my opinion, the big rival to chess as a strategic game is Go, which has even simpler rules but is, in fact, fantastically complicated. And though my knowledge of Go is quite limited, it does seem that as originality in chess, at the highest levels, gives way to the perfection of theory, practitioners of Go, when feeling it is "played out," would seem only to have to expand the size of the board to open up new vistas.
Dec 30, 2017
0
#5
Chess is simply one of many board games that I play. Although, I should mention that the board games that I play are the "quality" older games. I do not care for modern children games such as "Candyland" or "Life" or "Sorry" etc. I do however, like games such as "Risk" or "Stratego " or perhaps even "Scrabble" - of course this is a personal preference of mine; I have nothing against contemporary games of less thought, I just prefer the better quality of older games. For example, the board of "Stratego" is simply a neat artistic layout of the battlefield, compared to the inferior board of "Sorry", design-wise as well as play-wise.
Personally, I play " Chess" because I like board games, especially strategy games. I play it not because of its popularity, in fact I would like to argue how popularity of all board games (including chess) has declined over the years: in part to other forms of entertainment such as internet, or television, and so on. In fact, one reason that I play on chess.com is because of lack of chess players in my area. Ironically, it is because of Internet (etc) that strategy games declined, but also due to internet that I am able to play opponents literally across the world. I am not opposed to technology, contrarily I welcome it: but it is also the reason for board games declining in general.
To paraphrase, I may counter-intuitively say that I play chess - despite its popularity. I am also interested to see what other chess.com members have to say about this topic; why do fellow players enjoy this game as I do?
Dec 30, 2017
0
#6
Neither. I find chess to be highly appealing for the strategy that it encourages and requires to master, but I don't know if I would call it the best board game out there. Likewise, I find it extremely helpful to have such a large community of chess players to encourage more games to be played, but I do not play chess *because* others do. The high population augments the experience, but is not a sufficient reason in itself to cause me to want to play chess. I know that my brother plays chess simply because that's what everybody around him is playing, and so by that mark your question does hold some merit, but I don't think that you haven't sufficiently covered all possible ground here.
Antonin1957 wrote:
For many years I have been interested in board wargaming. But in recent years I have become increasingly disappointed in that hobby. Board wargames are too complex and too expensive, and there are too many designers out there who are just not very talented. Chess is a game with infinite depth. It's a game I will continue to play for the rest of my life.
I like the complexity of wargames, but... it's really difficult to find people to play with. So I guess the lack of popularity of wargames is really a problem to me, or even the only one, unfortunately.
Piscivore wrote:
I started playing chess when it definitely was not "popular" in the U.S.--"Fischer Fever" was still well in the future. I have enjoyed chess all my life, not least admiring the classic games of the past. I don't think I would be so satisfied long-term having played Monopoly, Life, Risk, or more modern role-playing games, though they are all fun to play. When a game has a history of centuries, with generations of leading players and theoreticians, and a long evolution, that is something to be part of, even in a small way.
In my opinion, which is indeed only my opinion, the big rival to chess as a strategic game is Go, which has even simpler rules but is, in fact, fantastically complicated. And though my knowledge of Go is quite limited, it does seem that as originality in chess, at the highest levels, gives way to the perfection of theory, practitioners of Go, when feeling it is "played out," would seem only to have to expand the size of the board to open up new vistas.
Yeah, totally agree. Go is the biggest rival of chess. I personally prefer chess too, since Go is "too open", which makes the strategical thinking more unnatural, but again, I'm very biased.
SpaceAmoebaTheThird wrote:
Neither. I find chess to be highly appealing for the strategy that it encourages and requires to master, but I don't know if I would call it the best board game out there. Likewise, I find it extremely helpful to have such a large community of chess players to encourage more games to be played, but I do not play chess *because* others do. The high population augments the experience, but is not a sufficient reason in itself to cause me to want to play chess. I know that my brother plays chess simply because that's what everybody around him is playing, and so by that mark your question does hold some merit, but I don't think that you haven't sufficiently covered all possible ground here.
Fair enough. Maybe my approach was very simplistic. I didn't try to make a complex discussion tho. More casual thing.
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
Chess is simply one of many board games that I play. Although, I should mention that the board games that I play are the "quality" older games. I do not care for modern children games such as "Candyland" or "Life" or "Sorry" etc. I do however, like games such as "Risk" or "Stratego " or perhaps even "Scrabble" - of course this is a personal preference of mine; I have nothing against contemporary games of less thought, I just prefer the better quality of older games. For example, the board of "Stratego" is simply a neat artistic layout of the battlefield, compared to the inferior board of "Sorry", design-wise as well as play-wise.
Personally, I play " Chess" because I like board games, especially strategy games. I play it not because of its popularity, in fact I would like to argue how popularity of all board games (including chess) has declined over the years: in part to other forms of entertainment such as internet, or television, and so on. In fact, one reason that I play on chess.com is because of lack of chess players in my area. Ironically, it is because of Internet (etc) that strategy games declined, but also due to internet that I am able to play opponents literally across the world. I am not opposed to technology, contrarily I welcome it: but it is also the reason for board games declining in general.
To paraphrase, I may counter-intuitively say that I play chess - despite its popularity. I am also interested to see what other chess.com members have to say about this topic; why do fellow players enjoy this game as I do?
I admire you. Maybe I'm a shallow person, but I would not play chess if its theory were not well developed, and things like that. I require at least a small group to discuss things, in a consistent and reliable way.
VicountVonJames wrote:
Risk is also a good board game.
I don't know why I play chess, I started when I was younger as I wished to be viewed as one of those intellectual (geek) types, as I was already obsessed with other geek-like things.
It's enjoyable, i guess. And it doesn't take as much time to play as, say, monopoly or risk.
I don't know why I play chess, I started when I was younger as I wished to be viewed as one of those intellectual (geek) types, as I was already obsessed with other geek-like things.
It's enjoyable, i guess. And it doesn't take as much time to play as, say, monopoly or risk.
Hmm.... yes, but Go and draughts (for instance) share more or less the same qualities of chess. Our culture (or popularity) makes chess unfairly bigger than any other classical board game. Although I do prefer chess, I feel I'm being very biased.
Dec 31, 2017
0
#12
Go is a more elegant game (eg only one piece type). It also happens to be older than chess. Many chess players would also find several features of go attractive:
- Every game is decisive
- There is a precise, effective handicapping system that means that every game can be a contest where neither side has a significant advantage, so the chance of a win is 50% and the consequences of a win or loss are balanced.
i only play because it's popular; everyone I know is obsessed with it. It's everywhere on TV, the internet etc. I camped out for 2 nights in line waiting for the latest chess set. I hate chess but I want to be like everyone else.
I like to think chess is the best board game, but I'm being very partial since it's the only board game I've studied for a "decent" time. Sometimes I think I play it just because it's popular. What about you?