sorry that chess doesn’t have fog of war mechanics
Slop is more fun than a centuries old board game, yes, probably, but they’re totally different games. They’re both fun, I think the beauty of chess is precisely because it is so limited, each move is so simple but means so much.
Chess is also slop, and its problem isn’t that its simple it’s that the actual experience of building up a library of experience of rote moves and patterns to then sit and sift through trying to guess which thing you’ve seen before your opponent will do is just sort of shit. Games with such thoroughly matured and optimized play are unapproachable and dull. The joy of a game is in intuiting out fresh systems and experiencing them, not performing a rote task you read in a book against the sort of person who plays chess.
Depends what you’d call slop really - I don’t think there’s anything predatory or addictive about chess in the same way as a lot of computer games. And as for the rote moves - I feel like I could reduce a lot of games to that too, as there’s always a meta game. But yes, I agree, computer games are more varied and fun. But I still wouldn’t call chess slop.
And as for the rote moves - I feel like I could reduce a lot of games to that too, as there’s always a meta game.
Sure, it’s just most games don’t have literally centuries of established strategy and meta. Like modern games are kind of a “the general level of skill is so high that this is getting unapproachable” after 5 or so years, where 1,000 hours is still considered a new player. Chess is an order of magnitude beyond that, at least.
But then I have ADHD that manifests in a paradoxical “I have a compulsive need to learn things, but not about them; I have to devour systems and rules and comprehend them and once I do most of the joy is gone unless it’s something truly special and even that has to be cycled through” that leaves little room for refinement or outside study of the sort that defines games like chess.
sorry that chess doesn’t have fog of war mechanics
Slop is more fun than a centuries old board game, yes, probably, but they’re totally different games. They’re both fun, I think the beauty of chess is precisely because it is so limited, each move is so simple but means so much.
Chess is also slop, and its problem isn’t that its simple it’s that the actual experience of building up a library of experience of rote moves and patterns to then sit and sift through trying to guess which thing you’ve seen before your opponent will do is just sort of shit. Games with such thoroughly matured and optimized play are unapproachable and dull. The joy of a game is in intuiting out fresh systems and experiencing them, not performing a rote task you read in a book against the sort of person who plays chess.
Depends what you’d call slop really - I don’t think there’s anything predatory or addictive about chess in the same way as a lot of computer games. And as for the rote moves - I feel like I could reduce a lot of games to that too, as there’s always a meta game. But yes, I agree, computer games are more varied and fun. But I still wouldn’t call chess slop.
Sure, it’s just most games don’t have literally centuries of established strategy and meta. Like modern games are kind of a “the general level of skill is so high that this is getting unapproachable” after 5 or so years, where 1,000 hours is still considered a new player. Chess is an order of magnitude beyond that, at least.
But then I have ADHD that manifests in a paradoxical “I have a compulsive need to learn things, but not about them; I have to devour systems and rules and comprehend them and once I do most of the joy is gone unless it’s something truly special and even that has to be cycled through” that leaves little room for refinement or outside study of the sort that defines games like chess.
deleted by creator