God doesn't like checkers as much as he likes Chess or he'd be having me on the checkers website and not on here! LOL!
please no religious things, they may insult other
14. checkers is the game that non- chess players play
Please, stop with politically correct ! This was just humor ! Ohé, ohé, did you already hear abour humor ?
More fair comparation would be between Arimaa and Chess. Arimaa vs Chess would be a better comparation, Arimaa is less complex and present a high level of strategy, so a person don't win because of having good computer power but because of having better strategy, as a result a brainless computer perform lower that humans, so no cheating there.
God doesn't like checkers as much as he likes Chess or he'd be having me on the checkers website and not on here! LOL!
please no religious things, they may insult other
14. checkers is the game that non- chess players play
Please, stop with politically correct ! This was just humor ! Ohé, ohé, did you already hear abour humor ?
you can tell that also to mods, would be a favour for all the community here, one of the threads I started was locked after a voluntary misspelling of the word "Catalans", for sure I didn't realize his username was "freecat" (freedom for Catalonia), if we are all that sensitive, why is he allowed to use that username, I would understand freedom for Palestina, but in Catalonia they live comfortably
HumbleBIOS wrote:
"Chess is not better than Checkers, they are different games. Chess is just more complex" I have already Proven Chess is better then Checkers subjectively, Chess = More potential. MORE POTENTIAL = MORE COMPLEX, MORE COMPLEX = MORE POTENTIAL, MORE POTENTIAL = MORE FUN = MORE USEFUL = MORE USEFUL/AKA-Something that is more useful is slightly better then something that is not as useful, you can learn more from Chess then from checkers, and checkers has been solved, Chess never will be, not by machines anyway, so Game over on that one.
I Agree on that one.
HumbleBIOS wrote:
"Chess is not better than Checkers, they are different games. Chess is just more complex" I have already Proven Chess is better then Checkers subjectively, Chess = More potential. MORE POTENTIAL = MORE COMPLEX, MORE COMPLEX = MORE POTENTIAL, MORE POTENTIAL = MORE FUN = MORE USEFUL = MORE USEFUL/AKA-Something that is more useful is slightly better then something that is not as useful, you can learn more from Chess then from checkers, and checkers has been solved, Chess never will be, not by machines anyway, so Game over on that one.
I Agree on that one.
I quite disagree, maybe professional deformation, but I disapprove the use of the sign equal between things that are not the same
"Chess is not better than Checkers, they are different games. Chess is just more complex" I have already Proven Chess is better then Checkers subjectively, Chess = More potential. MORE POTENTIAL = MORE COMPLEX, MORE COMPLEX = MORE POTENTIAL, MORE POTENTIAL = MORE FUN = MORE USEFUL = MORE USEFUL/AKA-Something that is more useful is slightly better then something that is not as useful, you can learn more from Chess then from checkers, and checkers has been solved, Chess never will be, not by machines anyway, so Game over on that one.
these two equalities are redundant
"Chess is not better than Checkers, they are different games. Chess is just more complex" I have already Proven Chess is better then Checkers subjectively, Chess = More potential. MORE POTENTIAL = MORE COMPLEX, MORE COMPLEX = MORE POTENTIAL, MORE POTENTIAL = MORE FUN = MORE USEFUL = MORE USEFUL/AKA-Something that is more useful is slightly better then something that is not as useful, you can learn more from Chess then from checkers, and checkers has been solved, Chess never will be, not by machines anyway, so Game over on that one.
this equality is trivial
GO CHESS!!!!!!!!!
"Chess is not better than Checkers, they are different games. Chess is just more complex" I have already Proven Chess is better then Checkers subjectively, Chess = More potential. MORE POTENTIAL = MORE COMPLEX, MORE COMPLEX = MORE POTENTIAL, MORE POTENTIAL = MORE FUN = MORE USEFUL = MORE USEFUL/AKA-Something that is more useful is slightly better then something that is not as useful, you can learn more from Chess then from checkers, and checkers has been solved, Chess never will be, not by machines anyway, so Game over on that one.
Tell me one good use of a board game (apart from killing time). Why do you deem Chess more 'useful' than Checkers, or for that matter, watching paint dry.
95% of top-level checkers games are draws.
"Chess is not better than Checkers, they are different games. Chess is just more complex" I have already Proven Chess is better then Checkers subjectively, Chess = More potential. MORE POTENTIAL = MORE COMPLEX, MORE COMPLEX = MORE POTENTIAL, MORE POTENTIAL = MORE FUN = MORE USEFUL = MORE USEFUL/AKA-Something that is more useful is slightly better then something that is not as useful, you can learn more from Chess then from checkers, and checkers has been solved, Chess never will be, not by machines anyway, so Game over on that one.
Tell me one good use of a board game (apart from killing time). Why do you deem Chess more 'useful' than Checkers, or for that matter, watching paint dry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_%28board_game%29#Theory_and_proofs
95% of top-level checkers games are draws.
Then Hex is better than chess, no draws there.
John Nash proved in 1952 that a game of Hex cannot end in a tie, and that for a symmetric board there exists a winning strategy for the player who makes the first move (by the strategy-stealing argument). However, the argument is non-constructive: it only shows the existence of a winning strategy, without describing it explicitly. Finding an explicit strategy has been the main subject of research since then.
Chess is better simply because computers haven't solved it yet. While we lose the majority of games to computer programs, there's still the possibility of winning a game or two.
Playing checkers just ain't the same against Chinook. 
Chess is better simply because computers haven't solved it yet. While we lose the majority of games to computer programs, there's still the possibility of winning a game or two.
Playing checkers just ain't the same against Chinook.
maybe against a Pentium I or a 486
Try Anmon 5.75, or this silly thing: http://www.turbulence.org/spotlight/thinking/
95% of top-level checkers games are draws.
Then Hex is better than chess, no draws there.
John Nash proved in 1952 that a game of Hex cannot end in a tie, and that for a symmetric board there exists a winning strategy for the player who makes the first move (by the strategy-stealing argument). However, the argument is non-constructive: it only shows the existence of a winning strategy, without describing it explicitly. Finding an explicit strategy has been the main subject of research since then.
I said checkers, not chess
95% of top-level checkers games are draws.
Then Hex is better than chess, no draws there.
John Nash proved in 1952 that a game of Hex cannot end in a tie, and that for a symmetric board there exists a winning strategy for the player who makes the first move (by the strategy-stealing argument). However, the argument is non-constructive: it only shows the existence of a winning strategy, without describing it explicitly. Finding an explicit strategy has been the main subject of research since then.
I said checkers, not chess
well, but in chess there are also many draws :P
There is no reason, just a matter of taste for the one or the other game.
I prefer chess.