What games follow the statement

Dante in DMC4/5, style switching well is a huge skill barrier.

Overwatch

Attached: ninjabutt.jpg (600x505, 45K)

you do not understand what solved means, do you?
not every combination was revealed yet. checkers is solved game.

Most RTS like Starcraft.

I was going to say MOBAs but your skill and knowledge can be negated by one uncooperative player on your team so there's a cap on how much you can actually "master" the game where you only have so much control.

Mordhau

Street Figher 3: Third Strike

starcraft isn't easy to learn

>Chess is a solved game now

Chess could not be solved if you had every atom in the universe for use as a storage device to contain the solution.

Attached: 1515192932432.jpg (1200x900, 351K)

SC1? maybe, not into it so I can't tell
SC2? You can easily get to low-mid plat in a few weeks of decent practice, basic macro is very easy for all races and micro is not necessary at low levels

it is
I got to gold by doing roach 1/1 timing attack every game

>press q
wow so hard

Attached: 1534935618758.jpg (1098x754, 174K)

tripfags are so fucking retarded

Hell no. The only DMC that follows this rule is the og because it's design is visceral and arcade rooted. Not completely a game of muscle memory building like Itsuno's entries.

Attached: 1471928833830.jpg (700x950, 140K)

>managing to stalemate with 2 queens
I get that white was playing with its food, but this is beyond embarassing

it is to us, but 99% of people wouldn't get a thing

fpbp

Qe8+
black must capture ...Rxe8
Bd5+
black must block with the queen ...Qe6
Bxe6+
black must capture ...Rxe6
fxe6
white now has a 2nd past pawn and is up a rook vs knight. black cannot effectively prevent promotion of the e pawn without letting the g pawn promote

>easy to learn, difficult to master
that doesn't make a game good or fun. Hell, you can apply that to anything, really.

That said, FTL is a good example.

Bishop to D5?

Retard here. How do you get 2 queens in chess?

Get a pawn to the other side of the board and you can turn it into a queen.

Qe8
Forces black to trade queen and rook for bishop and Queen, white is left with a passed pawn on the e column

Attached: BrianThinking1.jpg (436x481, 41K)

walk a pawn to the end of the board and scream out 'king me'

>only two queens at once
casual

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-09 at 7.48.25 AM.png (854x562, 89K)

how is that a stalemate though

king cannot move and is not in direct peril.

You can't legally move into check, and if a player can't move on their turn it's a draw.
It's completely retarded and no one can convince me otherwise.

why is that a rule? black has no moves left and is completely cornered, so surely it means they lose?

idk why that's the rule it's ridiculous but there it is

I don’t know how to play chess

Because if you're too retarded to finish a game with a checkmate then you don't even deserve to win.

It's to punish sloppy players who get careless while ahead, and give a comeback chance for those behind. If you can't checkmate with that big of a material advantage against a lone king, you didn't deserve the win

Attached: 1550722451665.png (723x598, 746K)

Chess is not easy to learn. If you mean learn how pieces move, thats not learning the game.

tetris

Good job anons, you saw the winning idea of a deflection sacrifice, and so did Benko which is why he resigned as his king is hopelessly trapped and Fischer is getting another queen in a few more moves as compensation.

>fucking up this badly
genuine kek

Sure it is. Everything else is varying degrees of learning.

>easy to learn

>black must block with the queen ...Qe6
or with rook

been looking for an excuse to post this
find the best move to initiate a winning attack. I found it in 15 seconds.

Attached: 1519256556818.jpg (619x619, 72K)

some of them like jive

2hu

Attached: 1555985381737.jpg (602x456, 28K)

no takers? shame!

>If you can't checkmate with that big of a material advantage against a lone king, you didn't deserve the win

I recently played a game against a 1300-rated opponent who very clearly had no idea how to win with king and rook vs. king.

The game was 100 moves and most of them were in the endgame as my opponent became increasingly frustrated as he spent 20 moves unsuccessfully trying to pin me to the back rank and checkmate with his rook. I offered a draw as he didn't know what he was doing and we were just wasting each others time, to which he refused. After another 15 moves of fucking up bad and allowing me to walk my king to the middle of the board, he ragequit and I gained 26 Elo points on a forced losing position.

Attached: 1443285624603.jpg (400x386, 25K)

Possibly:
Bxd6
if ...Qxe6
Rxe8+ Kg7
Rxb8 wins a piece and a pawn

otherwise it just wins a pawn?

Knight e6 with the idea of getting a discovered attack when your pawn recaptures on e6, and goes to e7.

This exposes his king and gives you a defended passed pawn. I haven't calculated it to checkmate but his rook and knight are on terrible squares for defense.

>he didn't know the prison technique
should've played learn to play chess with fritz and chester

push c4 with intent to play Qg3+

Attached: squirrel party.jpg (600x399, 47K)

How would I go about learning chess in a way that isn't bashing my head repeatedly against others clueless players in low ELO?

Chess could be solved if you had a decision tree that always wins/draws if one side uses it from the start regardless of what the other side does. You don't have to account for every possible position for that, since you extensively prune the move space with every move you get.

study the endgame, then study tactics, then study openings

This the reason I always got Rooks, when I'm just mopping up the last of his pieces

buy a chess tactics book
solve puzzles on lichess
watch a few chess videos

get a good chess AI program

mirror online games in it, play what the AI tells you to, eat some snacks and get fat

if white wants a draw it can 100% of the time guarantee a draw, obviously if black doesn't make blunders one after the other

Absolutely this game.

UMVC3 is the prime example of that statement in the figthing game genre

Attached: 91qek9XWZML._SX342_.jpg (342x433, 58K)

this isn't a japanese harem VN though

Easy to learn my ass
The rules are easy, but to win you need to learn a lot of techniques

so that means some butthurt ancient/medieval nobility came up with that rule because they were getting shit on while the other side were laughing their ass off?

possibly, or the top players wanted something to separate the good from the great

>How would I go about learning chess in a way that isn't bashing my head repeatedly against others clueless players in low ELO?

Study instructional games from Grandmasters and stronger players. Great players are great because they do things that weak players do not, if you learn from how they play chess you will become better too. The games of the first (unofficial) World Champion Paul Morphy are some of the most instructive, and he is sometimes considered (along with Fischer who was probably slightly better) to be the greatest player of all time, while his games are following understandable principles that you can apply too.

The "Opera Game" by Paul Morphy is almost always shown to new players, as it highlights to importance of
>active piece development
>positional considerations
>coordinated attacks
>king safety/castling
all of which his opponents ignored and played how kids/low rated players play.

youtube.com/watch?v=MKvUQpQWie0

Attached: chess-staunton-king.jpg (852x480, 19K)

read books, study games
early game - openings, memorization
midgame - tactics, basic principles (control the middle), positioning
late game - learning to check the other side with a combination of many different pieces

based morphy dabbing on those nerds

While it IS easy to learn how the pieces move and what a special move is or what constitutes an illegal move, chess is difficult to both learn and master simply because you have so many options available.

A good example of an easy to learn difficult to master is Starcraft. It's easy enough building bases and creating zerglings and quite another to know when to do so.

>all these fuckin scrubs circlejerking over chess
excuse me children, make way for the objectively deeper and superior game

Attached: akrales_160307_0970_a_0127.0.0.0.jpg (1400x1400, 474K)

Tetris

>but to win you need to learn a lot of techniques
difficult to master

Chess is solved for 7 pieces. There's 32 in the starting position.

Hell, we're not even seeing "essentially perfect" play: while beyond superhuman, even the top engines can on occasion take games off each other, once in a blue moon even as Black (exact details depending on time controls etc), and have strengths and weaknesses relative to each other that even meatbags can identify.

>cool looking pieces based on medieval shit
Vs
>a fucking m&m

well, the thread is about easy to learn

this is probably too much for them

>find a chess board to play in class
>no one knows how to play
>some nigga wants to learn and i teach him
>get too cocky end up getting my ass kicked

Attached: 1471671634631.png (1920x1080, 1.59M)

Here are some more Morphy games for the aspiring chess player, with humorous commentary.

youtube.com/watch?v=CbRkqqawcTo

If you want to get good at chess without autistic theory memorization, study how the great players of the past played (Morphy in particular as he completely raped people, with almost zero moves after move 3 being theory in 90% of his games).

Attached: Paul-Morphy.jpg (651x405, 94K)

finegold is hilarious, good taste

Yeah actually, why not this?

bump

It loses for the same reason.

White makes one move, and black resigns.

Can Yea Forums find it?

Attached: Alexander Alekhine v. Frederick Yates (London 1922).png (679x675, 47K)

Is chess really easier to learn or is it just because everyone has some cursory knowledge of the rules?

Ke5

Play GO

ke5 right?
Rook has to get clear and white gets free pawns.

>Rook has to get clear and white gets free pawns.

White actually gets free checkmate if black moves his rook.

Chess threads are comfy

Play me in this video game of chess.

lichess.org/aQuPpMaU

all you need is not to be a brainlet and be willing to invest the hours to learn the core fundamentals and how your favorite fighting game works. In the end not that hard

Anyone know a good chess streamer on twitch?

Too much gokids.

Hikaru is kinda chill

...

Hikaru is the only one really. He's good enough to play bullet at god level and still read chat. A few other guys are okay but have to play slower games to keep up with chat.

The few times Carlsen streamed were boring as fuck. He's good at the game obviously, but not entertaining.

Chess is not easy to learn at all though. Learning chess includes memorizing a nearly endless fuckton of strategies and counter tactics, something an average person will never be able to do. It's harder to learn than 99% of games out there.

>inb4 that's what mastering means
Mastering chess would be figuring out what to do with the million strats that you've just memorized, it's what professional chess players do for their entire lives.

Who tf made this atrocity

Advance wars follows that easy to learn hard to master rule. Too bad nobody plays it

I have a long summer ahead of me. Any books I can read?

gg, haven't played for ages.

I would say Wargame but it's both hard to learn (for someone unfamiliar with combined arms concepts) and hard to master

Good game though. But yeah there's 3 ways to give move orders and you have to keep up with logistics. I guess it's hard to learn but fun to learn, though that could describe any game that you have interest in.

BTW has Eugene done anything past Red Dragon?

>retards that still don't understand this scene

>Learning chess includes memorizing a nearly endless fuckton of strategies and counter tactics, something an average person will never be able to do. It's harder to learn than 99% of games out there.

That's only if you play boring Jew chess where you don't even play for fun and just want to protect your Elo rating. Plenty of 2000+ rated players out there who experiment with all kinds of goofy openings and/or intentionally break theory to make the game more interesting.

Admittedly the last 20 years have been awful because World Champions/Grandmasters like Kramnik, Carlsen, Anand, Giri, Gelfand, Topolav, etc. have all been boring as fuck and show zero imagination or flair, but chess doesn't have to be that way even when you play to win. Look at the great World Champions like Alexander Alekhine or Mikhail Tal who actually loved the game and would play intentionally complicated, theory breaking moves and then totally crush their opponents because the moves they came up with were better than what their opponents thought of.

Even in modern times you have a Grandmaster like Alexander Morozevich (who was number 2 in the world in 2008) who plays wild, aggressive, crazy chess with dubious openings, and he totally crushes people.

I would actually consider people in the "autistic book memory" school of chess like Anish Giri to be fundamentally shit players as they have no brains or imagination of their own and try to substitute raw intelligence and creativity with pounding their head into sand memorizing the Ruy Lopez or Slav Defense out to 50 moves, which if you could take that away from them their rating would plummet 400 points.

Attached: Mikhail_Tal_Chess_1982.jpg (799x1006, 233K)

Well, if you count the rules, Go has fewer.

If you think about it just one level above knowing the rules, I guess you could say people also tend to have very rudimentary knowledge of some very fundamental Chess concepts summarized in guidelines like "control the center" and can use them to, for example, intuit sensible opening moves and their responses. Or, they might have heard a Rook is worth 5 pawns while a Bishop is worth three, so they immediately know not to make an unfavorable trade. In contrast, Westerners tend not to have any such intuitions whatsoever in regards to Go. Say, while placing your first stone in the very edge is "obviously" bad, I don't think it's immediately obvious why you shouldn't place your first stone at the very center, but this shortcoming could be overcome if you had some nice quote memorized (like "Corners, then sides, then center") or if you had some mental image of what board tends to look like after the opening moves from games you witnessed as a kid - reaching parity with the amount of knowledge people tend to have about Chess pretty much by default. In other words, the cultural background gives people some basic ideas on what to do in Chess while you'd be completely clueless which of the 300 something possible opening moves you should make, but if the situation was equalized with similar amount of base knowledge, I don't think Go would appear any less approachable.

Poker

/thread

If the game is currently dominated by "boring" champions who do nothing but brute memorization instead of "creative" plays then maybe the game itself is boring and that's what it amounts to to be the best

The more theory we have the harder it gets to "break" it.

I don't know man. That sounds like mastering the game, not just learning to play it.
Played some chess 2 decades ago. The only advice from the old dudes was basically that think what you're doing before you do it. Don't rush things.
Or I guess the other one was that don't play 2-5 minute games with clock if you want to get any better.
It's a fun game, but goes pretty fast to the point where it stops being fun.

great post, if I was a redditor I would upvote this

Chess is for incel faggot nerds.
Have sex.

>he isn't a grand master
YIKES

Tetris

so a stalemate is just a checkmate minus the king currently being in check?

Be2 Knc6

>My four queens problem

>If the game is currently dominated by "boring" champions who do nothing but brute memorization instead of "creative" plays then maybe the game itself is boring and that's what it amounts to to be the best

A fair argument, however if you look at the current world champion Magnus Carlsen he barely squeeks above the #2 player in the world at any given time by like 10 Elo points. He also doesn't do very well in grandmaster tournaments compared to how well former World Champions did.

We could easily see a challenger appear who puts the smackdown on him like Fischer did against Boris Spassky. Maybe in 10-15 years it will be Tal or Fischer-type players dominating the chess world, especially because the "autistic book memorizers" get burned out and end up quitting chess as they get absolutely no joy out of it.

Attached: Fischer on Kasparov.jpg (850x400, 89K)

Apart from the obvious ones, I'd say WoT. It looks like a very simple and straightforward "aim at tank and press mouse button" game, but the tactics and meta are so deep that even after 5k played games you'd still be unable to break from 50-52% win ratio (if you're lucky, most people are 47-49% around their 5k games), when people like this noobmeter.com/player/eu/HAMlLTON/526742762 exist. And even if you were to watch their videos or streams and try to emulate them, you'd still be unable to emulate them almost as if there's some mental block preventing you from progressing further from just slightly above average stats

No, it's a draw.

Wow, that guy is very toxic.

check how he died hahahaha

>so a stalemate is just a checkmate minus the king currently being in check?

Basically yes.

One of the reasons for this rule is because chess has a "compulsion to move" rule, meaning you are not allowed to skip a turn. Most of the time you want it to be your turn, but sometimes if you're in a "perfect" position (meaning simply that any move off of any squares you are currently on would be inferior/losing) then you do not want to move. This prevents people in dead lost positions from going
>haha I'll let you have another turn, friend!
so that they don't ruin their very tense position that they want to keep.

The term for this is "Zugzwang", and here is a very common endgame example in which both players do not want to move (black because he gets checkmated, and white because it's a forced draw despite almost queening).

Because of this compulsion to move rule, a side effect of this is the issue of stalemate in chess. As you are not allowed to skip your turn, if you have no legal moves whatsoever and yet you aren't in check, the rules are basically in a bind and the game is considered automatically drawn.

The only real problem with this is stalemates counting for the same number of points as a draw, which seems unfair if you've totally destroyed your opponent. That's why instead of counting as 0.5 points, some people suggest stalemating your opponent should count as 0.6 (essentially being a potential tie-breaker if all other win, loses, draws are equal).

Attached: mutual zugzwang - chess.jpg (760x757, 385K)

Ikaruga, Dustforce, most arcade games

Attached: ikaruga.jpg (400x225, 38K)

...

>so this is the power of getting bleached

Attached: 1498111251724.jpg (531x558, 77K)

>studying endgame first
The fuck?

Endgame is the hardest part, I think

>chess has a "compulsion to move" rule, meaning you are not allowed to skip a turn
huh i actually didn't know that. pretty interesting.

Imagine youself being by fat the best player in the world, the one everyone is praying upon. And you are 100% sure you are an ubermensch, the genius of the geniuses, the only Mind among cattle. And then people who are better than you appear.

it's the easiest to learn because there are less pieces=less possible moves and outcomes. and if you learn endgame first you will learn better how to reach a favourable endgame position

(i dont play chess, i just intuitively feel that might be the reason)

>(i dont play chess, i just intuitively feel that might be the reason)

Never change, Yea Forums, never change

idk how to play chess at all

i thought Yea Forums should at least play it since they don't play vidya

nice correction, learned so much from it

>not playing vidya means you must play at least something else
And that's where you're wrong

I don't play chess either

Call of Duty.

Civilization

nobody said counter-strike yet? it's the most barebones simplistic shooter and the ceiling is unachievable. there are some minor imbalances with maps and economy, but you have to be turboautist or pro to notice/care about it

its worst problem is being team-based and that people can't bother to be polite to internet strangers, but oh well

Which one?

>Yea Forums chess thread
>GOfags must no matter what shill their literalwho weebgame, even though nobody mentioned their shitty game
Why does this always happen?

Why cant the king move?

King can't move into check

He lost his legs in nam

jesus christ

ARMS

Factorio.
Mount and Blade series.

Are you retarded?

Smoke my toe asshole.

Is just a game about psychology really. Don't even have to have good cards although it helps but you can win without it. Never count on luck, pressure other players and profit.

Checkers isn't that hard, OP