Chess > Board Game Of Your Choice
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Chess is my favorite board game. Let's see yours's.
CHESS = a board game of strategic skill for two players, played on a chequered board on which each playing piece is moved according to precise rules. The object is to put the opponent's king under a direct attack from which escape is impossible ( checkmate ).
RULES:
1. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
2. Definitions are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of rules 1-5 should result in a 1 point penalty.
6. No Kritiks.
7. Bones cannot participate (Due to me being sick of losing elo XD)
8. A breach in rules 6-8 should result an instant loss.
FRAMEWORK:
PRO: Will argue that Chess is the best board game out there.
CON: Will argue that another board game is better.
R1: Opening Statements.
R2: Rebuttal and Defense
R3: Closing Statements.
CON forfeited all arguments after initial arg.- meriting full forfeit without consideration of arg.
When I started into this I mistook it for a 4 round debate, with con forfeiting half. With him committing a technical full forfeiture, this vote will be easily outweighed by plenty of others. That said, I do believe con is the clear victor in spite of his self sabotage.
AI's and complexity: con
While an assertion is not always directly challenged after it is made, sometimes it is pre-refuted by arguments that outweigh it. That was the case with the computers, as much as con could have done better on sourcing how it will reshape the world, we have a believable appeal that AlphaGo will contribute to machine learning for vehicles and more (bettering the entire world), vs the inferior (from the debate: brute force to solve less complex problems) AI of AlphaZero which a few chess players can learn a couple tricks from.
Popularity and Age: Draw
Both are old, and have players. Since they're highly comparable on these, I don't see either coming ahead in a way to have comparable weight to quality discussion.
And I got to say, the claim that chess would have died out was too unsubstantiated to require a real defense.
chutes and ladders: commentary only
This was such a weird thing to bring up from the comment section (I actually check such things with a word search, and could not find the "too well known" bit in the comments or the debate proper). The problem with mentioning chutes and ladders, is that when you're making the argument that chess is better because it's more simple, it implies that this obviously more simple thing would be better than chess (in this case a game that is an elongated flipping of a coin). Had con not forfeited, he could have done that pivot for a two pronged assault.
Conduct: Pro
Forfeiture.
Sources:
Two Wikipedia quick facts (one at least was used in an appeal to simplicity), and a YouTuber (without the relevant portion of the video indicated), vs 6 different websites, including Business insider and even a chess website (credit here, as that website is logically pro chess, but used as an argument against chess via the increasing draw problem).
I tend to glance in at sources (as opposed to reading everything within, or watching whole videos), and con's sources made me genuinely learn things and want to go back to read more. Granted, the length of the blockquotes was a bit long, but that is my main hesitation in giving sources to him; to which he overcame with the Verge source going into driving AIs (thereby reinforcing one of his appeals; making it warranted instead of just an assertion).
And as a bonus, my round by round thoughts on the debate (the sources analysis was almost entirely later):
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3151/comment-links/39457
Arguments: RM couldn't respond, so I'm assuming he conceded since he never apologized for forfeiting.
Conduct: Forfeiting without apologizing to your opponent is bad conduct.
Voted for the wrong person last time.
Anyways, forfeiting is wrong.
What intel said. Good job deadfire!
My point isn't to make you feel bad, it's criticism which should be able to help you grow.
Oh just had an idea for if doing this again and someone mentions the Netflix movie: twist such around using sexy chess clips from said movie, thereby giving the audience a reason to prefer Chess (I do strongly prefer chess, but I do my best to check my feelings at the door when reviewing a debate).
Now you're just making me feel bad 😔
He even outright lied about firstly the relative popularity of Go (in the 'Eastern' or mainland Asia it's extremely popular, just as respects as Chess is if not more so) and secondly, Chess tournaments last days, hours at a time, idk where he got the idea it's 90 mins max.
At the point of writing my Round 2 I got too bored to continue. He'd even violated the Kritik rule but explaining that would be a drag and just anger him while maybe also angering voters. His entire case is that popularity can kritik absolutely all other elements of a board game's value, that is his core case.
To be honest though, I have no idea how or why but I think I am finally becoming a less argumentative person. As in, I am changing as a person even IRL. I've begun to understand that proving someone wrong is a largely taxing and futile task if you can't prove them wrong with results/actions. If I have to explain to you why you are wrong and can't quickly 'show' you then far more often than not what will ensue is a waste of my time and energy and even worse can leave you respecting me and my outlook less than before.
Here is a round by round development of my analysis...
R1:
I.
Pro: Chess is old and popular.
Con: Go is also old.
II.
Pro: Chess is popular.
Con: Chess would have died if not for Covid and Netflix.
III.
Con: Chess is not the "ultimate logic board game" (pro did not make that claim, as much as he probably should have). This is because Go has vastly more possible moves, resulting in it being much harder; and subsequently better AI's are developed for it.
R2:
I.
Pro R1: Chess is old and popular.
Con R1: Go is also old.
II.
Pro R1: Chess is popular.
Con R1: Chess would have died if not for Covid and Netflix.
III.
Con R1: Chess is not the "ultimate logic board game" (pro did not make that claim, as much as he probably should have). This is because Go has vastly more possible moves, resulting in it being much harder; and subsequently better AI's are developed for it.
Pro R2: Never spoke so highly of chess, and some replies to the comment section? Then an assertion that complexity marks an inferior game... Ah the complexity of the AI means players aren't able to learn from it as well with a YouTube blogger a source (seriously, this is against an explanation of chess computers using brute force instead of on the spot learning which Go computers use).
R3:
I.
Pro R1: Chess is old and popular.
Con R1: Go is also old.
II.
Pro R1: Chess is popular.
Con R1: Chess would have died if not for Covid and Netflix.
III.
Con R1: Chess is not the "ultimate logic board game" (pro did not make that claim, as much as he probably should have). This is because Go has vastly more possible moves, resulting in it being much harder; and subsequently better AI's are developed for it.
Pro R2: Never spoke so highly of chess, and some replies to the comment section? Then an assertion that complexity marks an inferior game which takes longer to play... Ah the complexity of the AI means players aren't able to learn from it as well with a YouTube blogger a source (seriously, this is against an explanation of chess computers using brute force instead of on the actual learning which Go computers use).
Con R2: Forfeiture.
Pro R3: Extend... (while new arguments were not allowed, expansion of the computer point to put the chess point into the lead would have been ideal)
Con R3: Forfeiture.
Kinda disappointed that RM forfeited two rounds. When I saw the debate's resolution my first thoughts were on Con bringing up Go and RM did just that.
Thanks!
Of course RM picks a game that few people know about.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: forfeiting most of the rounds is not something to do in a debating match.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter scored points to the inverse of their own analysis. The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
Well, it seems like I have voted incorrectly. I think it would be just to remove my vote in place for a better one.
You voted for the wrong person, I think. RM = CON, Deadfire = PRO. RM forfeited most the rounds, so you should have given PRO the conduct point.
Chess is the ultimate logic game. Logic is a skill that belongs in every other skill
Checkers is better only cause I'm too lazy to memorize all the piece's moves.
Nope. Monopoly.
Chess unreliable represents war in the past that doesn’t make sense now because we have tanks and stuff.
Monopoly actually represents normal-day capitalism. At least better than Chess representing anything.
Fair enough. I'll find a way to outmaneuver you
There is no rule saying I need to say the board game, if you accentuate the logic of Chess, I'll agree with your points and push for the board game Go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)
If you accentuate the popularity of Chess, I'll probably take Monopoly or could even troll and go for snakes/chutes and ladders.
If you decide to go all-round and mention how Chess has even starred in movies, I'll disagree with your points, I'll go for the game of Risk and explore how much more it's affected the world than Chess.
This resolution and the ruleset don't box the opponent into anything that Pro isn't himself further boxed into, which makes this a secure win if I try my best as I'm also sure something like this will actually get votes and be worth my time and effort.
Fair enough, give me some time to make a argument. Also, mind telling me your board game?
Then it should be easy for you
I thought you were bored of formal debating.....