Stratego Vs. Chess

[bacon333]

I've always enjoyed Stratego (started with electronic Stratego before D cells started exploding). I've also played a bit of Chess but in terms of strategy and mind games, I prefer Stratego. How about you?

 

[Modeps]

You're kidding right? Stratego, a game that relies mostly on chance vs one of the oldest, most complex mind games on the planet?

 

[Brainonska511]

I like a lot of different board games, so it's hard for me to say I like one over the other.

 

[Chryso]

When my buddies and I get together we play battle instead of poker.

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: Modeps
You're kidding right? Stratego, a game that relies mostly on chance vs one of the oldest, most complex mind games on the planet?

 

[Lorax]

since you know exactly what each piece can do in chess, it is more of a skill game. by not knowing your opponent's pieces in stratego, there is some luck invovled.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Sure thing giant beer!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Lorax
since you know exactly what each piece can do in chess, it is more of a skill game. by not knowing your opponent's pieces in stratego, there is some luck invovled.

And because of that, in terms of amount of fun, Stratego >>> Chess.

Fun games include randomness. Skill only games are just mostly following book rules of what to play next. Also, even a skilled player can have a good challenge with games that include luck. When I play skill only games, I always win, and it just is too rote. But when I play a game of skill + luck, ANYONE can win and it is exciting no matter who you play.

It is like tic-tac-toe. If you know the trick (skill) you can only win or tie. Thus, it gets quite boring quite quickly.

 

[Accipiter22]

I've always said that stratego is the chess of board games!

 

[Queasy]

I prefer the deep complexities of an overly-complex and mind befuddling complex game of "Sorry".

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: Modeps
You're kidding right? Stratego, a game that relies mostly on chance vs one of the oldest, most complex mind games on the planet?

What Modeps said. I like Stratego, but chess is way better.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Queasy
I prefer the deep complexities of an overly-complex and mind befuddling complex game of "Sorry".

Sorry with 4 people, and at least one not trying to win is damn fun. It helps if people are vengeful though.

 

[thesurge]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Lorax
since you know exactly what each piece can do in chess, it is more of a skill game. by not knowing your opponent's pieces in stratego, there is some luck invovled.

And because of that, in terms of amount of fun, Stratego >>> Chess.

Fun games include randomness. Skill only games are just mostly following book rules of what to play next. Also, even a skilled player can have a good challenge with games that include luck. When I play skill only games, I always win, and it just is too rote. But when I play a game of skill + luck, ANYONE can win and it is exciting no matter who you play.

It is like tic-tac-toe. If you know the trick (skill) you can only win or tie. Thus, it gets quite boring quite quickly.

Did you just call chess rote?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: thesurge
Did you just call chess rote?

Yes. Sure, there is a bit of new things you might see mid game (but after a while of playing even the middle tends to give lots of similar patterns that you just follow). But the beginning third and end third are all rote.

Play chess often enough with someone much better or much worse and it is no fun at all. This isn't true of any game that includes luck.

Now, if you took chess and randomized the starting positions, then it would always be a fun game. It'll never be boring, and you can have fun playing anyone of any level.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: dullard

... When I play skill only games, I always win, and it just is too rote. ...

When I play skill only games I usually lose. Now I feel sad, and stupid.

edited to correct quotes, the messing up of which further made me feel stupid.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Dirigible
When I play skill only games I usually lose. Now I feel sad, and stupid.

edited to correct quotes, the messing up of which further made me feel stupid.

Don't feel bad, all it means is that my friends/family suck at playing skill games. It doesn't mean that I'm any good.

 

[Modeps]

If chess is so rote, why is it nearly impossible to create a chess program that will never lose?

 

[kaymin]

I like Stratego more as a fun game. Chess is a bit too much thinking for beginners. But I read somwhere, Bobby Fisher said Chess is basically all about memorization of moves once you get to around champion status. But Stratego has the chance element to it, similar to real life wars.

 

[leftyman]

Wheres the option for checkers?

 

[Crafty35a]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: thesurge
Did you just call chess rote?

Yes. Sure, there is a bit of new things you might see mid game (but after a while of playing even the middle tends to give lots of similar patterns that you just follow). But the beginning third and end third are all rote.

Play chess often enough with someone much better or much worse and it is no fun at all. This isn't true of any game that includes luck.

Now, if you took chess and randomized the starting positions, then it would always be a fun game. It'll never be boring, and you can have fun playing anyone of any level.

Come on. What percentage of people who play chess actually know a significant number of standard opening lines? I consider myself a chess fanatic and I only know a few very specific ones. To say that the beginning of the game is all pre-determined patterns is just ridiculous unless you're playing at a Master level, which I highly doubt.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: thesurge
Did you just call chess rote?

Yes. Sure, there is a bit of new things you might see mid game (but after a while of playing even the middle tends to give lots of similar patterns that you just follow). But the beginning third and end third are all rote.

Play chess often enough with someone much better or much worse and it is no fun at all. This isn't true of any game that includes luck.

Now, if you took chess and randomized the starting positions, then it would always be a fun game. It'll never be boring, and you can have fun playing anyone of any level.

Come on, now this is being ridiculous. Chess is a game of minutiae, and while you might find patterns repeated at some stage it's the tiniest of nuances that ultimately matter. Casual chess players haven't even the slightest idea of why a move is good or not, and it's precisely having more in depth understanding that makes chess fun in the first place. Playing by simple rule and reflex will only lead you to a losing position. Again, that's quite ok for casual players, but not for anyone that truly understands the game.

BTW, there is a variety of chess where you randomize the pieces. It's called Fischer Random Chess.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: kaymin
I like Stratego more as a fun game. Chess is a bit too much thinking for beginners. But I read somwhere, Bobby Fisher said Chess is basically all about memorization of moves once you get to around champion status. But Stratego has the chance element to it, similar to real life wars.

Bobby Fischer said a lot of things that don't make a lot of sense.

Calling is a memorization of moves is false and a misrepresentation of the point behind chess theory. A person couldn't possibly memorize even a small number of actual positions on the board, but there are certain ideas which you can use to your advantage that make it seem like you have positions memorized. This could be things like opposition in the endgame, Philidor Positions, etc. There are many such ideas, and when you understand then you can indeed make the moves almost intuitively, but it takes a great deal of understanding to achieve.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Crafty35a
Come on...

Originally posted by: Descartes
Come on, now this is being ridiculous...BTW, there is a variety of chess where you randomize the pieces. It's called Fischer Random Chess.

I knew Chess enthusiasts would come in. I never said that Chess is a bad game. I just said that in my opinion randomness makes a game more fun. Feel free to give your opinion about randomness too.

Descartes, I hadn't seen Fischer Random Chess. I should look more into it if I ever take Chess up again. But I need to find someone to play with in person. I try not to allow my internet game addiction take over, so I don't have internet at home.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Crafty35a
Come on...

Originally posted by: Descartes
Come on, now this is being ridiculous...BTW, there is a variety of chess where you randomize the pieces. It's called Fischer Random Chess.

I knew Chess enthusiasts would come in. I never said that Chess is a bad game. I just said that in my opinion randomness makes a game more fun. Feel free to give your opinion about randomness too.

No worries. Everyone is free to their opinion.

I like FRC, but for me it doesn't deliver the same level of depth in terms of positional understanding. It's fun for blitz games, because then you can indeed apply some basic ideas and play a game mostly of intuition. That can be a lot of fun.

Descartes, I hadn't seen Fischer Random Chess. I should look more into it if I ever take Chess up again. But I need to find someone to play with in person. I try not to allow my internet game addiction take over, so I don't have internet at home.

You can probably pick up some action at a local club or park. Not a lot of people seem to play FRC though. Some guys in a park in downtown Atlanta pick up some games now and then.

 

[Modeps]

For some real fun and a degree of the randomness people seem to be seeking, I recommend Knightmare Chess 1&2
http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/