Chess is childish. Quake is not. How many 6-year-olds have you heard of that can kick ass at Quake? Now, how many of you have heard of Bobby Fischer, 6 year old kid that could beat almost anyone at chess?


I don''t know if that quote tag worked but here we go...

The reason 6-year-olds usually can''t kick ass at Quake is because of a few things: firstly and most importantly is hand-eye co-ordination; 6-year-olds have none. Quake is a twitch game (with strategy depending on how you play). Many 6-year-olds don''t have well-refined reflexes. One could also include memory: it''s difficult for an adult to remember all the keys used in Quake but even more difficult for a child.

Now for chess: Chess strategy is not split-second timing and targeting. No reflexes necessary, no co-ordination. Memory is needed to remember how to play though, so that only makes it more difficult. About Bobby Fischer, do remember that there exist many idiot savants who happen to be absolutely amazing at chess (or any other single skill) and otherwise developmentally delayed.

Another important thing to remember: if you were a parent, would you rather have your son/daughter to be a frag-master or a chess grandmaster? Most parents don''t like their kids playing games like Quake at all let alone enough to get really good at it.

Personally, I just think "childish" is the wrong word to describe either game.

Sorry about the long, ranty post. I needed to express that opinion.

-Goku

What do you get when you cross Quake and Chess? Quess. An excellent chess mod for Quake I

-e

"...how many of you have heard of Bobby Fischer, 6 year old kid that could beat almost anyone at chess?"

I've never heard of Bobby Fischer, the "6 year old kid that could beat almost anyone at chess." That's because there is no Bobby Fischer that at 6 years of age could beat almost anyone. The former world champion of chess, Bobby Fischer, began playing at the age of 6, but wasn't anything special until much later.

I guess I better talk about programming or something while I'm here. Playing chess and programming chess are both harder than playing Quake or programming it. No matter what IBM says, humans are still superior to computers in chess. The Kasparov-Deep Blue match was a little misleading. Deep Blue did win by 1/2 of a game, which doesn't really say much anyway, but Kasparov played unusually bad in several of his games. If he would have been in even slightly below average Kasperov form he would have defeated Deep Blue handily. Don't believe me? Check out what most other grandmasters in the world think. They agree. I'm getting off the programming topic, so I'm gonna stop talking now. Adios.

Edited by - rtr1129 on October 21, 2000 2:41:08 AM

Uhum, isn''t this just a matter of opinion?

I don''t even see why they''re being compaired. They are 2 totally differant games. This is like compairing a car with an airplane. Here''s a computer related one...a mouse and a trackball. It''s all personal preferance. Both have there advantages, but neither of them are really better than the other.