Aha. That's because they all play go!
Right?
Im gonna say it… i dont care, im gonna say it!
CHESS 👏 IS 👏 FUCKING 👏 DUMB
The best you can do is lose to a robot. Good job 👍
The best you can do is apparently lose to a robot.
Oh yea? We do chess shaming now? Did you know that many people have a proper disease and can’t play chess too well? Do you think it’s fair to mock them like this? Look it up on google, it’s called “having a life”, very debilitating.
/s
Yeah... everytime I see it in movies I kinda cringe. However it still is an effective narrative tool to say that the person is a stategist or is in a higher tax bracket ( or honestly any quality that the common viewer doesn't have). Even so, I wish writers would stop doing this.
The pared-down nature of chess really puts me off. I'm sure there's some elegant simplicity in it but I mostly find it dull. I like an element of randomness in my games.
Chess doesn't feel like a gateway to other, more fun games, and if it's not a fun game for me, why would I pursue it? I'm fairly sure it doesn't build skills that translate to anything else.
I also get that there are layers to it, although I'm adding that as apparently that's not so self-evident as to be taken as read. I can see where the path leads and find it no more appealing than the obnoxiously boring gambling machines in casinos, or Dota2, or athletics. Learn the meta, build an understanding of the underlying concepts in order to be able to build more complex strategies based on a combination of instinctive statistical analysis and assessment of your opponent, etc. etc.. I get it, I'm just not interested.
Edit: oh that's interesting, some of you have gone into my profile and systematically downvoted my older comments. That's what I get for not just blocking a Lemmy.ml user as soon as they chimed in.
I'm sure there's some elegant simplicity in
There is! It can get REALLY cool once you get just a bit inro it.
Chess doesn't feel like a gateway to other, more fun games, and if it's not a fun game for me, why would I pursue it? I'm fairly sure it doesn't build skills that translate to anything else.
If you've never learned how to read, then while you're learning it's difficult to imagine reading books for fun.
If I don't enjoy stumbling on pronunciations and having to look up the meaning of words, then how will I ever enjoy books?
Well books aren't about getting stuck in the pronunciation, you can only really start enjoying reading after you've already learned how and the built in rules and patterns are things you understand and can play with.
It's up to you whether to put in the effort to learn to read, but for someone who hasn't yet learned to say they "don't like reading". Sorry but you havent actually experienced what reading for fun actually is yet.
I really don't buy this comparison at all. I think a better comparison would be to JRPGs - "it gets fun after 30 hours!" There's also the presumption that a game like chess must be fun and everyone will definitely enjoy it. I'm really glad you enjoy it, I find it irritating that I don't. However if the basics of it don't draw me in, and I see no ancillary value in learning how to play it to a higher level, why would I continue? The world is full of enjoyable diversions and not everything is for everyone. I enjoy playing football (as in soccer) but find watching it to be awful. If I invested enough time I could perhaps find myself engaged enough in the bigger picture, care about the minutia, but why? There's so many other things I found enjoyable from the outset. Reading included.
I'm really at a lose about how what you wrote addresses their analogy. You just say that you don't buy it and that the basics should draw you in.
Don't get me wrong. You don't have to like chess. I don't particularly like chess, but I know the basics and know that I have to play a lot of games to get to the enjoyable part. In that way, their analogy is apt.
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but it is a bad analogy since learning to read a language leads to more exciting things, even if you don't enjoy reading books. You can communicate, do science, watch movies with subs etc. But learning chess does not make you good at anything else. (Tbh, I'm speaking out of my ass here, and will stand corrected if presented with research showing otherwise.)
That's part of my point. If we were talking about painting then the skills might well be useful for other stuff, but everything I've read says that it's just a game. It doesn't build other useful skills.
True, but 10% is probably higher average than usual.
I consider myself reasonably intelligent but I also have ADHD so … I completely suck at chess.
I don't have the patience to learn how to play chess well. I don't think more than one move ahead. My favourite game is Catan.
Being skilled at a game has little bearing on your intelligence beyond maybe "above average". Intelligence is often best reflected in learning speed.
This got me wondering about lionising Go in films. I think I need to start a such a movement amongst directors or screen writers.
I'm hilariously bad at chess. I learned the fools gambit and never progressed.
I'm dumb as rocks at night but I won 3rd in a competition once. My brain does that thing the DVD logo does on your TV when you're not watching anything but I can get a bunch of bullshit into the middle of the board really fast.
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.