As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
Chess is a game which teaches the use of overloading massive force in line with deception.
Checkers is a game which teaches directed force with continuous solid backing of position.
- Lame Cherry
It seems you never find a good checker player among chess players, and vice versa. The chess master scorns the checker player as rustic and beneath them, while the checkers player is uninterested in a game of pieces of a dimensional scale and lacking forward movement.
I enjoy both games immensely, but neither game is interchangeable, for if you approach checkers with a chess mindset, you will be easily destroyed, while if you approach chess with a checker's mindset, you will be easily checked by slashing movements.
This will offend, but I find that checkers is a more complex game, even while chess has the more complex game. It is dichotomy in how a game of complexity can be simple and a simple game can be complex.
It is an example of life and war though in both games. If you want to win at chess, overload your position and advance, while maintaining your defense. If you want to win at checkers, always have backing as you advance, or you will be defeated. In both games though it is always about position first and last.
One can not but help hear military generals in the above terminology. Nathan Bedford Forrest was about hitting them on the end, and bring the most you got first. That is outflanking an enemy position and bringing overwhelming force to that point first. That in most cases produces victory.
Checkers for it's rigid formation, actually is a most disciplined geometry of attack forward, which is sound military doctrine and then being able to slide force forward or back, to gain flank or overwhelm position, and in every case providing backing or so that you do not expend your resources on the enemy and be destroyed.
I am a firm believer in these two board games, played in conjunction, as one exposes the creative battle mind to defeat while the other exposes the rigid battle mind to defeat. Being sound in both doctrines is what produces an excellent field commander.
When I approach chess as a checker's player, I am defeated. When I approach checkers as a chess player, I am defeated. They are two different games, but each have the same objective of conquerring the opponents backfield by force and deception. Each though produces that result with manifest diversity which does not transfer to the other's order of battle.
Nuff Said
Nuff Said
agtG
agtG
