Cheers!
Why isn't chess more popular?
Sort:
A book about gamedesign (The Art of Game Design, Jesse Schell) gave an interesting view about this matter. In chapter 9 its about the focus of the player, and how to keep it.
Some general rules for most people:
People want clear goals: if a long and shortterm goal is clear, people will stay focussed longer.
Direct feedback: short feedback after an action keeps focus better than feedback that comes long after the action.
Continuously Challenging: humans like challenges as long as they are reachable. In general people enjoy to resolve a challenge that is slightly more difficult or about the same as their skill level. (you dont enjoy solving "1+1=?"- thats no challenge)
The author then gives an image that explains quite good why some people are frustrated if a task is to challenging and others get distracted because its to easy.
The graph shows the tunnel of 'flow'. If a game keeps the player within that tunnel it keeps the player interested, because each time the player solve a challenge that matches their skill.
The example that is given is Alex (A). Alex starts playing tennis, and he is happy to get the ball across the net (A1). The challenge getting the ball across the net is easy, but Alex just started playing, so they match.
After some time Alex's play improves and just hitting the ball over the net is not challenging anymore. His skill is bigger than the challenge and that gets him bored (A2).
However, when he meets a strong oppononent his skill of "just getting the ball across" is not enough. Alex will feel anxiety because the challenge of "getting to about the same level as his opponent" is not within short term range (A3)
To make it enjoyably again, he'll have to practice (alot) so his skill again matches the challenge. (A4)
I believe that no matter what the chess lovers of this world do. To even consider chess may have any form of sustainability, is such a ridiculous notion, it's actually quite amusing...lol.
The presumption that the boardgame, chess, will be in any type of public demand in the near future(10-20 years), is, "simple arrogance!"
Ahem... "simple arrogance" from an arrogant simpleton ?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.
timbeau wrote:
Ahem... "simple arrogance" from an arrogant simpleton ?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.
Just remember for next time. Do not apologise when voicing your views, especially when they are demeaning (arrogant).
All you have succeeded to do, is illustrate my point, therefore, seeing yourself utilizing arrogance to try to cover your fear of self worth (or, as "you claim") put it, simpleton).
ElKitch wrote:
A book about gamedesign (The Art of Game Design, Jesse Schell) gave an interesting view about this matter. In chapter 9 its about the focus of the player, and how to keep it.
Some general rules for most people:
People want clear goals: if a long and shortterm goal is clear, people will stay focussed longer.
Direct feedback: short feedback after an action keeps focus better than feedback that comes long after the action.
Continuously Challenging: humans like challenges as long as they are reachable. In general people enjoy to resolve a challenge that is slightly more difficult or about the same as their skill level. (you dont enjoy solving "1+1=?"- thats no challenge)
The author then gives an image that explains quite good why some people are frustrated if a task is to challenging and others get distracted because its to easy.
The graph shows the tunnel of 'flow'. If a game keeps the player within that tunnel it keeps the player interested, because each time the player solve a challenge that matches their skill.
The example that is given is Alex (A). Alex starts playing tennis, and he is happy to get the ball across the net (A1). The challenge getting the ball across the net is easy, but Alex just started playing, so they match.
After some time Alex's play improves and just hitting the ball over the net is not challenging anymore. His skill is bigger than the challenge and that gets him bored (A2).
However, when he meets a strong oppononent his skill of "just getting the ball across" is not enough. Alex will feel anxiety because the challenge of "getting to about the same level as his opponent" is not within short term range (A3)
To make it enjoyably again, he'll have to practice (alot) so his skill again matches the challenge. (A4)
So basicly I think people are confronted with to high challenges to quickly when they start playing chess.
And at the same time they are not able to improve their skills to match up with the challenges they face.
ElKitch wrote:
ElKitch wrote:
A book about gamedesign (The Art of Game Design, Jesse Schell) gave an interesting view about this matter. In chapter 9 its about the focus of the player, and how to keep it.
Some general rules for most people:
People want clear goals: if a long and shortterm goal is clear, people will stay focussed longer.
Direct feedback: short feedback after an action keeps focus better than feedback that comes long after the action.
Continuously Challenging: humans like challenges as long as they are reachable. In general people enjoy to resolve a challenge that is slightly more difficult or about the same as their skill level. (you dont enjoy solving "1+1=?"- thats no challenge)
The author then gives an image that explains quite good why some people are frustrated if a task is to challenging and others get distracted because its to easy.
The graph shows the tunnel of 'flow'. If a game keeps the player within that tunnel it keeps the player interested, because each time the player solve a challenge that matches their skill.
The example that is given is Alex (A). Alex starts playing tennis, and he is happy to get the ball across the net (A1). The challenge getting the ball across the net is easy, but Alex just started playing, so they match.
After some time Alex's play improves and just hitting the ball over the net is not challenging anymore. His skill is bigger than the challenge and that gets him bored (A2).
However, when he meets a strong oppononent his skill of "just getting the ball across" is not enough. Alex will feel anxiety because the challenge of "getting to about the same level as his opponent" is not within short term range (A3)
To make it enjoyably again, he'll have to practice (alot) so his skill again matches the challenge. (A4)
So basicly I think people are confronted with to high challenges to quickly when they start playing chess.
And at the same time they are not able to improve their skills to match up with the challenges they face.
Could it be possible that some people do not view chess as you or your graph would suggest?
Yes, but the graph is not about chess. The graph is about how (most) people like to get better at something.
Anything can be filled in for something. Let take some examples:
tic tac toe: most adults solve this game in no time. There are no more challenges in this game so they get bored (A2).
basicly every modern videogame: starts out easy, with levels that make the player learn how to use his abilities. In other words: players learn how to face the more difficult challenges. People like tough challenges, as long as they can learn (in a not to long time) how to solve them.
Chess: simple rules, but so many possibilities. New players usually get sweeped of the board in no time. So the challenge they face is instantly big. And unfortunatly it takes quite some time and energy to improve at chess.
So that I think is the problem: many other games that do give the good feeling of solving challenges + chess being very difficult to master to a reasonable level.
I think a lot of people are thrill seekers or do what they do more for the feelings it can bring. If it takes a lot of hard work for being good at chess, it stands to reason that, other easier things that are more of a thrill, would be more popular.
Jul 25, 2012
0
#212
nameno1had wrote:
I think a lot of people are thrill seekers or do what they do more for the feelings it can bring. If it takes a lot of hard work for being good at chess, it stands to reason that, other easier things that are more of a thrill, would be more popular.
yeah, you killed it before it even got off the ground.
ilikeflags wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I think a lot of people are thrill seekers or do what they do more for the feelings it can bring. If it takes a lot of hard work for being good at chess, it stands to reason that, other easier things that are more of a thrill, would be more popular.
yeah, you killed it before it even got off the ground.
Are a lot of people thrill seekers? I see you get into cheap thrills...
ilikeflags wrote:
stop thinking. let your dad chesspoo do the thinking.
My dad? My dad is dead. Who is chesspoo?
I thought it was George?
ilikeflags wrote:
your dad is dead? that's so sad.
I am sure you are over come with grief...
Jul 25, 2012
0
#219
nameno1had wrote:
ilikeflags wrote:
your dad is dead? that's so sad.
I am sure you are over come with grief...
this is so sad.
Chess is not popular coz some people think most chess players end up crazy. Very very sad.
I was already crazy, so big loss there.