Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

How Hard Is Chess, Really?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #21

    waffllemaster

    There are different ways of measuring difficulty.  Other than how often you win (I don't think many people consider the lottery hard to play) you could measure it by the capacity the game has for error.  For example you can't play the lottery incorrectly... there's no wrong way to buy ticket(s).  Similarly it's easy to make no errors in tic-tac-toe.

    In games of chance, it may be easier to lose, but a decision based on limited information can be measurably good and still lead to a negative result.  The result and the quality of the decision are separate, and so the skill and the result are separate.

    But then you could easily imagine an unnecessarily complicated game that would be impossible to play well at all.  Say a board with 10^100 squares and 10^99 different types of pieces, add other dimensions and lots of rules etc.  So capacity for error is not a useful metric either.

    So maybe a better measure of difficulty would be, in a practical sense, the difference between the extremes of how well and how poorly we can expect decisions/plays to be made in the game.  Games that are commonly held as difficult, like chess or golf, would be considered difficult under this definition.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #22

    hicetnunc

    Chess is not that difficult if you play for fun : it becomes very difficult if you play in a competitive environment.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #23

    konhidras

    I think the reason it becomes diffucult is when we are faced with an even opponent. Or someone whos play differs from ours. When every tactic and combination is neutralized and every game bores down to the endgame. I met alot of them in 15 min games.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #24

    JoseO

    just curious about one silly thing. let us suppose that parallel universes exist and you find a way to play one of your alternate selves. Do you think that the majority of your matches will result in draws? i almost never get a draw game. Nearly all games i play wind up with a result of some kind both good or bad.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #25

    konhidras

    JoseO wrote:

    just curious about one silly thing. let us suppose that parallel universes exist and you find a way to play one of your alternate selves. Do you think that the majority of your matches will result in draws? i almost never get a draw game. Nearly all games i play wind up with a result of some kind both good or bad.

    Sinceits a hyphotethical question, i gues one of my other self will win coz there are times when i select simpoe positions and sometimes i like combinative attacks.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #26

    Musikamole

    waffllemaster wrote:

     

     

    But then you could easily imagine an unnecessarily complicated game that would be impossible to play well at all.  Say a board with 10^100 squares and 10^99 different types of pieces, add other dimensions and lots of rules etc.  So capacity for error is not a useful metric either.

    So maybe a better measure of difficulty would be, in a practical sense, the difference between the extremes of how well and how poorly we can expect decisions/plays to be made in the game.  Games that are commonly held as difficult, like chess or golf, would be considered difficult under this definition.

    "Say a board with 10^100 squares and 10^99 different types of pieces, add other dimensions and lots of rules etc. " That comment got me thinking about the picture above. Smile



    Reading Wikipedia, it seems like rules were established for three dimensional chess as seen in Star Trek. I didn't know that. Has anyone played this chess variant? Did Captain Kirk ever beat Spock? Laughing

    "The complete Standard Rules for the game were originally developed in 1976 by Andrew Bartmess (with encouragement from Joseph) and were subsequently expanded by him into a commercially-available booklet." - Wiki

    ---

    Capacity for error is not a useful metric?

    I'm not sure if I follow. I like to play openings where both sides are given plenty of opportunities to make mistakes, where there are plenty of natural looking moves that are either mistakes or big blunders. Perhaps these openings would be considered sharp? To me, sharp openings make chess much harder, and more fun, unlike playing some system opening, like the Colle, where it is unlikely for White to hang a piece in the first few moves.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #27

    JoseO

    do you feel that your other self knowing this as well will try to steer the game along a more simple path or instead enjoy the challenge of getting into a game of combative attacks?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #28

    konhidras

    JoseO wrote:

    do you feel that your other self knowing this as well will try to steer the game along a more simple path or instead enjoy the challenge of getting into a game of combative attacks?

    Maybe. SOmetimes when i re-anotate my games i see variations that i should have chosen rather than those that i have jotted down before.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #29

    JoseO

    by the way, Kirk always beat Spock. Spock commented that sometimes the irrational moves played by the captain can sometimes have its advantages. I forgot which episode you see them playing and Kirk enjoying himself because he beat spock at 3-d chess.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #30

    Here_Is_Plenty

    I am hearing other stuff mentioned like lottery (which is so easy I can play it drunk with just as much skill as when I am sober) and computer games which pale beside Assassins Creed and some others.  These are not, however, board games which I believe was the point of the thread.  If we are allowed to go off topic I would say chess is harder than adamantium and not as hard as Chuck Norris's six pack.  In terms of board games they might be right about Go, I am not a player so cannot say; no board game I have ever played, from wargames to Catan to anything comes close to Chess.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #31

    konhidras

    I also saw sheldon cooper beat his friend in 3d chess. big bang theory

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #32

    waffllemaster

    I've played a few 3d chess games via that board from star trek.  As you notice in post #27, the picture has the satellite boards on the bottom start floating above.  And this is how the rules we found online said to do it too... but when you pay attention to the initial position, those boards should start floating below that bottom board.  (When you read the rules on how these board work, and how pieces move off of them, it makes sense).

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #33

    JoseO

    i think Spock should have played queen to queen's level 3

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #34

    ClavierCavalier

    Musikamole wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

     

     

    But then you could easily imagine an unnecessarily complicated game that would be impossible to play well at all.  Say a board with 10^100 squares and 10^99 different types of pieces, add other dimensions and lots of rules etc.  So capacity for error is not a useful metric either.

    So maybe a better measure of difficulty would be, in a practical sense, the difference between the extremes of how well and how poorly we can expect decisions/plays to be made in the game.  Games that are commonly held as difficult, like chess or golf, would be considered difficult under this definition.

     

    "Say a board with 10^100 squares and 10^99 different types of pieces, add other dimensions and lots of rules etc. " That comment got me thinking about the picture above.


     


    Reading Wikipedia, it seems like rules were established for three dimensional chess as seen in Star Trek. I didn't know that. Has anyone played this chess variant? Did Captain Kirk ever beat Spock?

    "The complete Standard Rules for the game were originally developed in 1976 by Andrew Bartmess (with encouragement from Joseph) and were subsequently expanded by him into a commercially-available booklet." - Wiki

    ---

    Capacity for error is not a useful metric?

    I'm not sure if I follow. I like to play openings where both sides are given plenty of opportunities to make mistakes, where there are plenty of natural looking moves that are either mistakes or big blunders. Perhaps these openings would be considered sharp? To me, sharp openings make chess much harder, and more fun, unlike playing some system opening, like the Colle, where it is unlikely for White to hang a piece in the first few moves.

    I'm not sure, but I think Kirk usually won against Spock.  Kirk was supposed to be a master strategist and tactician.

    An interesting thing in that article is that the board and set up changed throughout the series, even within the same episode, I think.

    "Queen to queen's level 1."  I remember this from an episode, but I don't remember the answer.  Do you?  It was the challenge that they had to answer right in order for the Enterprise to beam them up in that episode where they go to the mental hospital.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #35

    koala8

    It's one of the most mental games there is others are mostly of luck

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #36

    waffllemaster

    Musikamole wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

     

     

    But then you could easily imagine an unnecessarily complicated game that would be impossible to play well at all.  Say a board with 10^100 squares and 10^99 different types of pieces, add other dimensions and lots of rules etc.  So capacity for error is not a useful metric either.

    So maybe a better measure of difficulty would be, in a practical sense, the difference between the extremes of how well and how poorly we can expect decisions/plays to be made in the game.  Games that are commonly held as difficult, like chess or golf, would be considered difficult under this definition.

     

    "Say a board with 10^100 squares and 10^99 different types of pieces, add other dimensions and lots of rules etc. " That comment got me thinking about the picture above.


     


    Reading Wikipedia, it seems like rules were established for three dimensional chess as seen in Star Trek. I didn't know that. Has anyone played this chess variant? Did Captain Kirk ever beat Spock?

    "The complete Standard Rules for the game were originally developed in 1976 by Andrew Bartmess (with encouragement from Joseph) and were subsequently expanded by him into a commercially-available booklet." - Wiki

    ---

    Capacity for error is not a useful metric?

    I'm not sure if I follow. I like to play openings where both sides are given plenty of opportunities to make mistakes, where there are plenty of natural looking moves that are either mistakes or big blunders. Perhaps these openings would be considered sharp? To me, sharp openings make chess much harder, and more fun, unlike playing some system opening, like the Colle, where it is unlikely for White to hang a piece in the first few moves.

    I guess that I was tryign to say it, while capacity for error has to be part of it, it can't be the only consideration.  The wonderful thing about chess is seeing very strong players enter these weird looking positions, and play weird looking moves, and it all works out.  So as long as someone can play it well and we can recognize it, then we can say it's hard.

    Obviously a multi-demensional board game would be very hard, but I was trying for a more useful/practical definition.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #37

    waffllemaster

    ClavierCavalier wrote:

    I'm not sure, but I think Kirk usually won against Spock.  Kirk was supposed to be a master strategist and tactician.

    An interesting thing in that article is that the board and set up changed throughout the series, even within the same episode, I think.

    "Queen to queen's level 1."  I remember this from an episode, but I don't remember the answer.  Do you?  It was the challenge that they had to answer right in order for the Enterprise to beam them up in that episode where they go to the mental hospital.

    Really?  I thought spock always won... someone has to know this ;)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #38

    BBais

    Shogi is harder than chess

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #39

    ClavierCavalier

    waffllemaster wrote:
    ClavierCavalier wrote:

    I'm not sure, but I think Kirk usually won against Spock.  Kirk was supposed to be a master strategist and tactician.

    An interesting thing in that article is that the board and set up changed throughout the series, even within the same episode, I think.

    "Queen to queen's level 1."  I remember this from an episode, but I don't remember the answer.  Do you?  It was the challenge that they had to answer right in order for the Enterprise to beam them up in that episode where they go to the mental hospital.

    Really?  I thought spock always won... someone has to know this ;)

    2nd paragraph:  http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Three-dimensional_chess

    "In the 2260s, Kirk and Commander Spock played many games of three-dimensional chess together aboard the USS Enterprise. It was a fascinating experience for Spock as Captain Kirk beat him on many occassions, defying Spock's own logic. (TOS episodes: "Where No Man Has Gone Before", "Court Martial")"

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #40

    Musikamole

    JoseO wrote:

    do you feel that your other self knowing this as well will try to steer the game along a more simple path or instead enjoy the challenge of getting into a game of combative attacks?

    If I have a choice between a solid move or a less solid move that gives my opponent, for example, an opportunity to hang a piece due to an absolute pin to his king, I will pick the less solid, more risky move.

    Said another way, if I am playing an opening where I could play a move that sets a trap, and not the most popular choice by game explorer, I will pick the less popular move.

    Here's a simple example of picking a less popular move, one that everyone on this forum knows, that gives Black a chance to make a mistake early on. It serves as a good teaching tool with my elementary students.






Back to Top

Post your reply: