>>10123009I'll admit that I never knew chess very well at all. One of the reasons was that I looked at the scene and saw something like that. It's a big demotivator for me, for a lot of these skill-based games. That they end up boiling down to "If A happens, he has to respond with B" "If B happens, he has to respond with C", and then the whole game is already played out by the time you do the first move(s). The only reason that there's a winner or a loser, is because one of them did something slightly sub-optimal at some point.
I dislike other "sports" for similar reasons, for example I dislike circuit racing like Formula 1, because it's too restricted, and there's only one "optimal" route. If you do anything except that, you lose. If you do that one route, basically what the computer would run in the background of an F1 game while displaying the score, you win based on your starting position. But at least there are accidents in races, people skid off the side and so on, so I can kind of watch it. Something like rally is more interesting, there's a much larger room for variety there, different cars, different paths in the same track.
Anyway, I don't know what people see in chess. Either you're better than your opponent, in which case he has no chance of beating you, or you're worse, and he will definitely win. There's very little luck, flavour (a chosen variation that is equally successful despite being different) or excitement involved.
>>10123012Yeah, although neither one is a "true" solution, I guess. You'd need a quantum computer, then you could actually "solve" these games.
