Stratego Vs. Chess

[Barfo]

chess >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&gt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&gt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&gt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&gt
>>>>>>>>> stratego

 

[randumb]

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.

Chess doesn't really require a strong opening repertoire until you're at least at a master rating level, which puts you in the top 1% of competitive players. I was a nationally ranked scholastic chess player for many years and always played pretty limited openings.

 

[torpid]

If you want something fun and exciting, try some chess variations like bughouse. That game is a lot of fun. More fun than stratego could ever be.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: torpid
If you want something fun and exciting, try some chess variations like bughouse. That game is a lot of fun. More fun than stratego could ever be.

Bughouse can be played with more players too. I agree its super fun :thumbsup:

 

[Inspector Jihad]

chess is great...i used to be pretty good but i havent played in a few years. i think i'll play with my dad tonight.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: randumb

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.

Chess doesn't really require a strong opening repertoire until you're at least at a master rating level, which puts you in the top 1% of competitive players. I was a nationally ranked scholastic chess player for many years and always played pretty limited openings.

Out of curiosity, what was your rating? I'm assuming USCF?

I agree with you for the most part though. Even advanced players (rated maybe 1600-2000) spend far too much time trying to analyze the nuances of opening lines. Chess is a game of accumulating advantages, and the tiny little positional advantages you gain from specific opening lines rarely gets converted into actual use later in the game, because inevitably they compromise their position far worse than the little advantage they gained anyway.

I think it's better to learn the basic principles behind basic opening lines, and from that learn basic principles that are more conducive to your middlegame. You don't have to be an expert in the Yugoslav, but if you're falling prey to basic tactics in the opening you're not doing well either. It's all in balance.

Ok, I turned this into a chess thread. Sorry.

 

[Smartazz]

I had to reread this post to remember what Stratego was. It's been so long since I played that game, but I'd have to say that it's more fun than chess imo.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: randumb

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.

Chess doesn't really require a strong opening repertoire until you're at least at a master rating level, which puts you in the top 1% of competitive players. I was a nationally ranked scholastic chess player for many years and always played pretty limited openings.

Out of curiosity, what was your rating? I'm assuming USCF?

I agree with you for the most part though. Even advanced players (rated maybe 1600-2000) spend far too much time trying to analyze the nuances of opening lines. Chess is a game of accumulating advantages, and the tiny little positional advantages you gain from specific opening lines rarely gets converted into actual use later in the game, because inevitably they compromise their position far worse than the little advantage they gained anyway.

I think it's better to learn the basic principles behind basic opening lines, and from that learn basic principles that are more conducive to your middlegame. You don't have to be an expert in the Yugoslav, but if you're falling prey to basic tactics in the opening you're not doing well either. It's all in balance.

Ok, I turned this into a chess thread. Sorry.

I was rated ~1700 before I quit in 8th grade. But I found that even many of the top ranked players aren't particularly well versed in openings. I scored a big upset against the second ranked player (rated ~2200) at nationals one year by getting him out of book quickly in the Trompowsky.

 

[Kwaipie]

Go >> Chess >> Stratego

 

[TecHNooB]

Chinese chess is the best

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Go >> Chess >> Stratego

This is probably true. Go is extremely difficult. It takes a PHD just to understand the online rating system in Go.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: 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.

 

[Dualist]

Chess > Stratego

Truthfully, never even heard of Stratego.

 

[lupi]

Different games. No comparison.