Jul

12

In talking with the web mistress about checkers versus chess, I told her I am not convinced at all that the road to Italy is open for Lubo. She said that it's probable that if he's that good at checkers he must be very good at other things. I said that I know a lot of chess players that are very good at chess, but not very good at much else. Then I said I think that checkers has more applicability to life than chess because it's a binary game with up and down forward or back, but chess is a war game with a special board and moves. I believe that the logic of checkers has more applicability and to be good at checkers has more generality. I am not convinced by my argument but many wonderful things can come from simple on and off, high or low, 1 or 0 as computers and circuits show.

Anatoly Veltman writes: 

I always tell a story about my adolescence, where I was groomed to become a Soviet Checkers Champion ever since introduction to the game at the age of 5.

Among customized tutorials by special instructors of the KGB fame: lessons on peripheral vision (when moving up from 64-square national game to the 100-square international game) and on how to forget things (when you blank out a totally missed move, to allow complete focus on task currently at hand). And yes, to most professional players that checkerboard was a model of life — very hard to explain to a non-pro.

I think, one of distinctions that the Chair is after has to do with "obligatory jumping" in checkers vs. no such thing in chess. This rule leads to more logic and structure in checkers, while allowing more improvisation and artistry in chess.

Michael Ott writes:

I was recently talking with a friend about the differences in Western vs Asian mindsets. He remarked that it may have something to do with chess vs. Go. In chess, you need to totally dominate the opponent, knocking out many pieces and eventually capturing the king. In Go, you can be behind until the last few pieces are played and still come through to win 34-30. His declaration was that Go players are comfortable with a tight game if they have an exit strategy. They are comfortable with a victory, even though it may be by a small margin. Chess players, on the other hand, tend to go for the kill and the big victory.

There are obvious exceptions, but I thought it was valuable to share.

Don Chu writes:

I wrote this a fair while back, commenting on an old DS post, Chess Gestalt:

Between chess gewalt (violent force) and a sharing of black & white

But GM Davies is of course right about how relative game complexity has everything to do with board size, and less about the relative merits or the fuzzy ‘rhetoric’ (word used in its modern pejorative usage, not the ancient noble art) of hemispheric mindsets.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search