Never mind obvious kludges like the en passant rule Basic stuff like how the pieces move and the order they're arranged in and stuff is clearly just made up and not made up for any particularly good reason
-
-
Show this thread
-
Like hell the time honored concept of "castling" is a kludge put into the game because the rooks starting out where they are is very annoying and frustrating but putting them somewhere else from the beginning was deemed OP
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have to imagine that there are a significant number of repeat chess games, move for move, especially shorter ones. And beyond that, it's true of most games anyway.
-
For example there’s the Scholar’s Mate, a four-move checkmate that is fairly common in games amongst beginners.pic.twitter.com/qcaWda6Dpl
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Us enlightened Go players recognise that *truly* elegant players don't need frippery like "pieces that move" to play a game.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Don't most chess players have favoured strategies? Wouldn't that mean that games will be the same all the time? In fact doesn't the ability to predict your opponents moves rely on that fact? Beyond that strategies like fool's mate exist, which requires the same four moves.
-
The primary reason for pro chess players like Bobby Fischer to propose serious new chess variants is indeed the fact that every serious player playing for money is expected to have memorized an "opening book" of optimal starting moves
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Guy should try writing a chess engine, which exposes you to exactly how inelegant the game is. Every type of piece moves differently, and even what should be consistent meta-rules e.g. "you can't walk through other pieces" have exceptions! "Pieces take by moving onto enemies" do-
-
-esn't work either! Then you have castling and en passant, which are not only completely out of left field as far as the existing rules go, they're also bizarrely the only two bits of game state (besides who's move it is) that are NOT implied by the pieces' arrangement on th-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
We're supposed to believe that somehow, in the extended international history of tinkering with this game, this particular variation that Europeans landed on in [checks Wikipedia] the 1400s is clearly optimal and no further tinkering could conceivably produce an improvement?
-
Do these folks even listen to themselves?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.