ilikeflags wrote:
this little nemo andy intercourse is cute
Spoken like a true oppressor...
Why isn't chess more popular?
Sort:
So you would've eaten the whole pizza by yourself?
Oh, yeah, and he would have told Spicolli to f#*k off!
And he would've reached in there and pulled that guy's heart out himself.
I spent most of my high school time in a very accurate simulation of the interior of Spicoli's van.
Not that I advocate such things of course (shit, I almost forgot to post this wienie TMIM-style disclaimer).
You mean wienes like me?
I know you love me flags. Me, and nemo...and chesspoo, and...
AndyClifton wrote:
I spent most of my high school time in a very accurate simulation of the interior of Spicoli's van.
Not that I advocate such things of course (shit, I almost forgot to post this wienie TMIM-style disclaimer).
Well done. I have to salute you for this!
George1st wrote:
Apparently, other board games like Monopoly, Chequers, Scrabble, Poker etc are far more popular.
I am interested to gain some insight as to why?
Because Chess players are associated with the nerd brigade and the like.
Monopoly, scrabble, poker and the like are simplistic games with enough of a luck factor that even poor players will win occassionally.
Chess, Go, and other strategic games with very little luck factor are rough on the ego. To be good at these types of games requires one knows one's own strengths, and more importantly, one's weaknesses. They require effort and maturity that games of chance do not.
Checkers is an interesting counter-example. It is deceptively simple, and skill matters just as much as in chess. However, because of the deceptive simplicity, many bad players still enjoy it because they can play it without effort and not feel like they are completely without hope.
ilikeflags wrote:
i'm pretty eclectic.
I'll buy eclectic, but I disagree with the pretty part...
Kingpatzer wrote:
Monopoly, scrabble, poker and the like are simplistic games with enough of a luck factor that even poor players will win occassionally.
Chess, Go, and other strategic games with very little luck factor are rough on the ego. To be good at these types of games requires one knows one's own strengths, and more importantly, one's weaknesses. They require effort and maturity that games of chance do not.
Checkers is an interesting counter-example. It is deceptively simple, and skill matters just as much as in chess. However, because of the deceptive simplicity, many bad players still enjoy it because they can play it without effort and not feel like they are completely without hope.
Most people who think they are chess players, play it a very low level. I don't kid myself into thinking I'm a chess player like many on here do.
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
Kingpatzer wrote:
Monopoly, scrabble, poker and the like are simplistic games with enough of a luck factor that even poor players will win occassionally.
Chess, Go, and other strategic games with very little luck factor are rough on the ego. To be good at these types of games requires one knows one's own strengths, and more importantly, one's weaknesses. They require effort and maturity that games of chance do not.
Checkers is an interesting counter-example. It is deceptively simple, and skill matters just as much as in chess. However, because of the deceptive simplicity, many bad players still enjoy it because they can play it without effort and not feel like they are completely without hope.
Most people who think they are chess players, play it a very low level. I don't kid myself into thinking I'm a chess player like many on here do.
I think it is fair to say that there are chess players and then there are those who play chess...
ilikeflags wrote:
there you go thinking again. if you had stayed 'til past junior year you would've learnt that thinking isn't your thing.
It amazes me as to how little thought I put into those things...if you knew me flags...I'd either drive you nuts or frighten you with just my thoughts...
ilikeflags wrote:
yeah you're so CRAZY!
Hey Flags, check your mail...
thehedgehog2000 wrote:
AloDurry wrote:
iksarol wrote:
the games you mention are popular in the USA , so just a small portion of the world considers them popular , chess is played all over the world where smart people live . Sorry its not so popular in your country.
Ahem. Are you suggesting the United States is not smart? The past 100 years has proven you wrong... Silicon Valley is vertainly a good example of a place full of Smart People in the USA. Hey, you know what i like? Chicken. It starts with a C-h just like Chess.
What he means is that charts show that the US is rated rather low in the standings of success in school which is true. Many Americans are lazy but what I dont understand about his comment is that not only smart people play chess. I'm a slacker. Okay I get straight A's in school but thats an example of being lazy. But you see I'm only 12 years old with a rating of around 2000 uscf so lazy people can still play chess well. I wouldn't classify America as dumb but I would use the word lazy.
i've travelled to europe. Maybe Americans are losing thier work ethic, i agree with this statement. However, they have less holidays, less unemployment, and longer hours. On paper, Americans work harder.
Paul Morphy, or Bobby Fischer anyone? In my opinion, the US is just a young country going through a depression of chess enjoyment. This isn't very relevant. The UK went through it, and so shall we, with pride for those who play the game!
ilikeflags wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
ilikeflags wrote:
yeah you're so CRAZY!
Hey Flags, check your mail...
you're not my type
Oh my
ilikeflags wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
ilikeflags wrote:
yeah you're so CRAZY!
Hey Flags, check your mail...
you're not my type
Seriously you dope, I sent you a message. I don't want my business, or anyone else's in the forums. I sent it to for privacy and I thought you would know some information about a few things.
Oh and don't flatter yourself... 
Oh.